On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 01:22:39PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote: > Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 03:40:06PM -0800, John-Mark Gurney wrote: > >>> Should we also document that -m is suppose to be src's etc dir instead > >>> of src? I've accidentally pointed -m at src, and then it does a make > >>> which is quite ammuzing as it's completely the wrong thing... Or now > >>> that we call outside of /etc, should we make -m really point to src, > >>> and have the proper calls add etc to the directory? > > I strongly dislike the idea of changing the semantics of the -m option. It's > been the way it is since day 1, and I really hate to make changes to > something like that. I can see a case for making the man page more clear, > but I'd rather work around the problem with -m than change the semantics. FWIW, I've _always_ cursed this option; I keep forgetting to point it at a subdirectory of the one I use 'make installworld' in. If you ask me, this is one of those 'please break backwards compatibility for the sake of keeping people sane' kind of things. My EUR 0.02, --Stijn -- "...I like logs. They give me a warm fuzzy feeling. I've been known to keep logs for 30 months at a time (generally when I thought I was rotating them daily, but was actually rotating them once a month)." -- Michael Lucas, in Big Scary Daemons article 'Controlling Bandwidth'
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:53 UTC