Garance A Drosehn wrote at 13:31 -0500 on Mar 8, 2006: > At 8:59 AM -0700 3/8/06, M. Warner Losh wrote: > >In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Pawel Jakub Dawidek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >: On Wed, Mar 08, 2006, Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav wrote: > >: +> > >: +> 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... > > If we fix this in some makefiles in -current, should we also > (eventually) MFC the changes back into RELENG_6? Or is it > only an issue for -current?
Fix share/mk/bsd.README, too. It says that NO_MAN is a Makefile knob. _______________________________________________ cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
