Re: [PATCH] documentation: Makefile accounts for SHELL_PATH setting

[Jeff King <peff@peff.net>]

On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 07:38:35AM -0400, Ben Walton wrote:

> I used the ifndef/endif setup becuase that's how the PERL_PATH was set
> and also becuase I think it's slightly more explicit.  I'm ok with ?=

I can't think of any reason why the two would not be equivalent
functionally. I would generally use ?= because it is more portable, but
we are inextricably bound to gmake at this point, so I don't think that
matters. So I don't have a strong preference.

> > but maybe it is not worth caring about (since it may complicate building
> > Documentation if you _haven't_ build the actual code).
> 
> In my case, I'm using the configure script and then running make,
> which sees the Documentation/Makefile source in the ../config.mak
> files, so there may be some variance between pure make and make +
> autoconf in this respect.  I hadn't looked at it in that light.
> Should this be reconciled too?

Oh, right, I forgot that it pulls in config.mak. So it is really a
non-issue if you are putting SHELL_PATH in your config.mak (or defining
it via autoconf). So nevermind my ramblings in that direction.

I think it should be fine to just resend your patch with:

  1. default to $(SHELL)

  2. quote $(SHELL_PATH) as appropriate

-Peff