Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2001 21:47:20 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Warner Losh <imp@harmony.village.org>, Alexander Langer <alex@big.endian.de>, Bruce Evans <bde@FreeBSD.org>, <cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org>, <cvs-all@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/etc Makefile src/etc/defaults make.conf src/games/fortune/datfiles freebsd-tips src/release/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/relnotes/common new.sgml src/share/examples/etc README.examples make Message-ID: <20010901214402.E2087-100000@besplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <20010831185945.A94310@sunbay.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > On Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 09:43:05AM -0600, Warner Losh wrote: > > In message <20010831141549.A55775@sunbay.com> Ruslan Ermilov writes: > > : What is the reason that make(1) should .error (read: exit 1; > > : the following .include is meaningless) if it encounters the > > : /etc/defaults/make.conf? Since the user was not supposed to > > : edit this file, and the only uncommented thing was BDECFLAGS, > > : wouldn't it be more intuitive to just stop including it, but > > : not bail out? > > > > I agree. There's no reason to error out for something like this.... > > > Not that I object to backing this out (I myself only notices this > thread on -arch when my daily -CURRENT build script bailed out > from .error in sys.mk), but I've got the feeling from reading > the complete thread on freefall in archives that BDE said OK to > this move. I'm pleased that make.conf is being cleaned up and don't see any fundamental problems with the implementation. Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010901214402.E2087-100000>