On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 08:45:37AM +0100, Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav wrote: +> Pawel Jakub Dawidek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: +> > On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 12:37:11AM +0100, Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav wrote: +> > > > Hajimu UMEMOTO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: +> > > > > Log: +> > > > > NOMAN --> NO_MAN +> > > > No, the correct spelling is +> > > > MAN= +> > Since when? I found 36 NO_MAN='s in my tree and none 'MAN='. +> +> Since we abandoned MAN[1-9]. The fact that many old Makefiles still +> use NO_MAN doesn't make it right; NO_MAN is a user knob, not a +> Makefile knob (same distinction as between WITH_FOO and USE_FOO in the +> ports tree).
Fair enough. Maybe we should fix NO_MAN= uses, so it doesn't create confusion? -- Pawel Jakub Dawidek http://www.wheel.pl [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer Am I Evil? Yes, I Am!
pgpTWKyhFDcGK.pgp
Description: PGP signature
