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

[Marcel Moolenaar]

On Oct 12, 2005, at 8:27 AM, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:

> 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.
>>
>>
> __MAKE_CONF doesn't fall under "make sets or knows about the following
> internal variables or environment variables".  Rather, it's a FreeBSD
> specific feature, it doesn't have any direct connection to the make
> utility (as well as CPUTYPE, CFLAGS, etc.).  As such, it shouldn't
> be documented in the make(1) manpage.  OTOH, build(7) could benefit
> from talking more about make.conf(5), while having __MAKE_CONF only
> documented in make.conf(5) is fine.  We really don't need any more
> duplication.

Note that sys.mk is inherently part of make(1). It follows logically
that any feature added to sys.mk is therefore a feature of make(1)
and should be documented in make(1). Since __MAKE_CONF defines which
(if any) second-order configuration file gets included, by default
/etc/make.conf, it's illogical to document it in make.conf(5). The
__MAKE_CONF variable has no relation to what /etc/make.conf does.
It's by virtue of __MAKE_CONF that make.conf(5) exists.

-- 
  Marcel Moolenaar         USPA: A-39004          marcel at xcllnt.net