cvs commit: src/usr.bin/make make.1

[M. Warner Losh]

In message: <20051012195808.GK99170 at submonkey.net>
            Ceri Davies <ceri at submonkey.net> writes:
: On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 10:19:33PM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
: > On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 06:06:52PM +0100, Ceri Davies wrote:
: > > > From: Ruslan Ermilov <ru at freebsd.org>
: > > > Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin/make make.1
: > > > Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 18:27:10 +0300
: > > > 
: > > > > On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 09:13:30AM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:
: > > > > > In message: <200510121009.j9CA9aE3026075 at repoman.freebsd.org>
: > > > > >             Yar Tikhiy <yar at FreeBSD.org> writes:
: > > > > > : yar         2005-10-12 10:09:36 UTC
: > > > > > : 
: > > > > > :   FreeBSD src repository
: > > > > > : 
: > > > > > :   Modified files:
: > > > > > :     usr.bin/make         make.1 
: > > > > > :   Log:
: > > > > > :   __MAKE_CONF doesn't really belong here because it is
: > > > > > :   a FreeBSD extension of sys.mk.  A xref to make.conf(5)
: > > > > > :   will be enough here.
: > > > > > :   
: > > > > > :   Requested by:   ru
: > > > > > 
: > > > > > I disagree.  It is already hard enough to find info about __MAKE_CONF,
: > > > > > and since it is part of the base system, this seems like an artificial
: > > > > > distinction.
: > > > > > 
: > > 
: > > > > We really don't need any more duplication.
: > > 
: > > That's true, but it should be our problem and not the user's.
: > > 
: > It's not just that, it's that __MAKE_CONF isn't used/set/known
: > by the make(1) utility.  It's a location of make.conf file that
: > is included by the default FreeBSD version of sys.mk.  So if
: > we wanted to emphasize this, it'd be more logical to talk more
: > about make.conf(5) itself, what it is and how it's used in
: > FreeBSD.  It can be a separate section, e.g. "FreeBSD sys.mk",
: > documenting __MAKE_CONF and probably other "make \
: > __MAKE_CONF=/dev/null -f /dev/null -dg1" bits.  Or it could be
: > a short explanation of what make.conf is and then a reference
: > to the make.conf(5) manpage.  But it's certainly not the make's
: > internal variable (where it was initially documented), hence my
: > objection?to this commit.
: 
: That's a convincing argument too.  Perhaps this stuff belongs in mk(7)?

sys.mk is described in make(1), so all things that affect it should be
described as well.  If we ever have a mk(7), that might change, but
for now we really need it in make.1!

Warner