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

[Tom Rhodes]

On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 15:58:11 -0600 (MDT)
"M. Warner Losh" <imp at bsdimp.com> wrote:

> 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!

Want my copy of mk.7?  It certainly needs reviewed ... for
being over a 1000 lines.

-- 
Tom Rhodes