Re: Makefile consistency

["Carl A. Schmidt" <carl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 09:31:09PM +0200, Simon Schubert wrote:
> On 03.09.2005, at 21:07, Carl A. Schmidt wrote:
> >I have started with one simple change from MAKE_KERBEROS5 to 
> >NO_KERBEROS,
> >making the option consistent with most of the other options.  This
> >changes the logic of the Makefiles where MAKE_KERBEROS5 appeared to on
> >by default, but I also adjusted etc/defaults/make.conf to have
> >NO_KERBEROS by default.  I don't know if that's the correct way to go
> >about disabling things by default or not, but it seemed to make sense.
> 
> Thanks for your submission, but it won't work this way.  if NO_KERBEROS 
> is defined in /etc/defaults/make.conf, then you won't be able to 
> undefine it lateron.  While it would be good to have only one way of 
> logic, this unfortunately doesn't work how you'd like it.
>
> >Also, what's the preference as far as patches go?  Is it preferred to
> >have one big patch or multiple small patches?  I suck at CVS so all I
> >could put together right now was small patches for each file modified,
> >and I expect this isn't what's preferred...
> 
> Usually one big patch per changeset.  cvs diff -u gives you the changes 
> that you made before.
> 
> If possible, please send patches with Content-Disposition: inline.
> 
> cheers
>   simon

Hrm, okay.  Well thanks for the response, I'll just have to try a
bit harder is all.
-- 
Carl Schmidt
carl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx