> On Sat, May 26, 2001 at 03:06:00PM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > On Sat, May 26, 2001 at 02:59:22PM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > > Shouldn't the includes/Makefile be installing headers using
> > > INCOWN/INCGRP instead of BINOWN/BINGRP?  I ran into this when trying
> > > to do a 'make includes' as a normal user.
> > 
> > Oops, hit send too soon; more changes are required of the same form.
> > Before I go to the trouble of doing those, I might as well get
> > confirmation whether this is the right thing to do.
> > 
> This was on my TODO.  The only problem with INCOWN/INCGRP not being
> used here is that they were introduced long after include/Makefile.

And perhaps one should go read the commit message that introduced them...
it was an experiment, a sample test designed to only be used in -current
/usr/src/lib, that BDE, Sheldon and myself had long followon conversations
about, and got dropped into the cracks.

The name INC* is not clear as to be correct, per BDE it probably should be
HDR* or HDRS* (I specifically avoided that since existing Makefiles used
that, not knowing that BDE had seperately been eyeing HDRS* for what I
ended up calling INC*.)

Since, other commiters have ignored direct, and inderect requests not to
propogate this INC* experiment, and it now infects all the way back to
at least 3.x* and possibly 4.*, making it near impossible to clean up :-(.

So feel free to ignore this email and change src/include/Makefile any
way you wish...

Rod Grimes - KD7CAX @ CN85sl - (RWG25)               [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to