In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Pawel Jakub Dawidek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: 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?
Seems like a reasonable thing to do. Cut and paste copying of bad
examples is a big source of bogusness in our tree...
Warner
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
