On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 12:18:14PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote: > On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 04:10:51PM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > > > Why change in the first place? > > > > > > What was wrong with 'make includes'? Why break POLA? > > > > > They were broken. See commit log for share/mk/bsd.incs.mk,v 1.1 for > > a full story. > > I fail to see how they were broken from the rev 1.1 bsd.incs.mk log. > Please read it more carefully. (Hint: not all includes have been installed).
> It looks like you just hyjacked the `includes' target. Why could you not > have used `incbuild' and `incinstall'? Then includes is something like > > includes: incbuild incinstall > Actually, from what I've read, I plan on renaming these targets to buildincludes and installincludes, and restoring the `includes' to mean build + install. I will do the same for all-man, maninstall (buildmanpages, installmanpages, manpages = build + install), etc. all would mean build* (build everything), and install = install* (similarly install everything). This would bring us the consistency in standard targets names, so that one doesn't need to remember that to all-man is build manpages, and includes - to build includes, and "files" (when we have bsd.files.mk) to build files. Cheers, -- Ruslan Ermilov Sysadmin and DBA, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sunbay Software AG, [EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBSD committer, +380.652.512.251 Simferopol, Ukraine http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve http://www.oracle.com Enabling The Information Age
Description: PGP signature