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

> 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.

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

Attachment: msg38359/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to