Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 10:34:32 -0600 (MDT) From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: glebius@FreeBSD.org Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, yar@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin/make make.1 Message-ID: <20051012.103432.74694671.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20051012152307.GV14542@cell.sick.ru> References: <200510121009.j9CA9aE3026075@repoman.freebsd.org> <20051012.091330.53066886.imp@bsdimp.com> <20051012152307.GV14542@cell.sick.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
From: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin/make make.1 Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 19:23:07 +0400 > On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 09:13:30AM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote: > M> : yar 2005-10-12 10:09:36 UTC > M> : > M> : FreeBSD src repository > M> : > M> : Modified files: > M> : usr.bin/make make.1 > M> : Log: > M> : __MAKE_CONF doesn't really belong here because it is > M> : a FreeBSD extension of sys.mk. A xref to make.conf(5) > M> : will be enough here. > M> : > M> : Requested by: ru > M> > M> I disagree. It is already hard enough to find info about __MAKE_CONF, > M> and since it is part of the base system, this seems like an artificial > M> distinction. > > I think that seeking __MAKE_CONF in make.conf(5) is straightforward. I didn't say that. I'm saying it should be in make.1 as well, since that's where a lot of folks will look for it... Since I added the functionality, don't I get a say in where we document it? Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051012.103432.74694671.imp>