From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Jan 14 08:26:52 2004
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 750B116A4CF; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 08:26:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailman.zeta.org.au (mailman.zeta.org.au [203.26.10.16])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id EA0CF43D80; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 08:26:42 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from bde@zeta.org.au)
Received: from gamplex.bde.org (katana.zip.com.au [61.8.7.246])
	by mailman.zeta.org.au (8.9.3p2/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA01680;
	Thu, 15 Jan 2004 03:26:31 +1100
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 03:26:31 +1100 (EST)
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
X-X-Sender: bde@gamplex.bde.org
To: Takahashi Yoshihiro <nyan@jp.FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <20040114.172325.71181558.nyan@jp.FreeBSD.org>
Message-ID: <20040115031722.F2686@gamplex.bde.org>
References: <20040113130843.4702F16A54D@hub.freebsd.org>
	<20040113093817.E62202@root.org>
	<20040114.172325.71181558.nyan@jp.FreeBSD.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org
cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org
cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org
cc: nate@root.org
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/modules/acpi Makefile.inc
X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree <cvs-src.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-src>,
	<mailto:cvs-src-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-src>
List-Post: <mailto:cvs-src@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cvs-src-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-src>,
	<mailto:cvs-src-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 16:26:52 -0000

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Takahashi Yoshihiro wrote:

> In article <20040113093817.E62202@root.org>
> Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> writes:
>
> > Is this the right approach?  If you want a single Makefile.inc in
> > /sys/modules, then why not just include ../../Makefile.inc?  Why make an
> > empty one that just includes its parent, which leads us to a twisty chain
> > of Makefile.inc's, all the same?
>
> I think that this is a better and simpler way than adding
> '.include ../../Makefile.inc' to all Makefiles in subdirectories.

Right.

The twisty maze in the modules subdir is the fault of the directory
organizers.  Modules should be in a flat hierarchy like they are when
they are installed.

Bruce