to do a fairly
> obvious thing, yeah?
What are the exact semantics of -U supposed to be?
From the message in freebsd-hackers which first introduced
this patch:
- Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 09:09:17 -0700
- From: Faried Nawaz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
- Subject: patch to add make -U
While workin
Juli Mallett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why go thru those contortions? I sometimes use "make FOO=" to define
> things. -U obviously has a place, if it not existing means I have to
> have all these contortions to do a fairly obvious thing, yeah?
What are the exact semantics of -U supposed to b
* Ruslan Ermilov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Date: 2003-07-30 ]
[ w.r.t. Re: make -U ]
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 04:23:20PM -0500, Juli Mallett wrote:
> > * Ruslan Ermilov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Date: 2003-07-30 ]
> > [ w.r.t. make -U ]
> > > Sorry, I&#x
On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 04:23:20PM -0500, Juli Mallett wrote:
> * Ruslan Ermilov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Date: 2003-07-30 ]
> [ w.r.t. make -U ]
> > Sorry, I've accidentally dropped an email about `make -U'.
> >
> > I think that it's not need
* Ruslan Ermilov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Date: 2003-07-30 ]
[ w.r.t. make -U ]
> Sorry, I've accidentally dropped an email about `make -U'.
>
> I think that it's not needed, since the functionality can
> easily be achieved by running "make FOO=",
Sorry, I've accidentally dropped an email about `make -U'.
I think that it's not needed, since the functionality can
easily be achieved by running "make FOO=", i.e., assigning
an empty value. Remember that command line variables take
precedence over globals, so the
