From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] documentation: Makefile accounts for SHELL_PATH setting Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 02:19:46 -0400 Message-ID: <20090322061946.GC14765@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <1237603220-22897-1-git-send-email-bwalton@artsci.utoronto.ca> <20090321032240.GA31547@coredump.intra.peff.net> <1237635198-sup-2111@ntdws12.chass.utoronto.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: GIT List To: Ben Walton X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Mar 22 07:22:18 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LlH4b-00049a-JT for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sun, 22 Mar 2009 07:22:18 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751867AbZCVGTw (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Mar 2009 02:19:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751837AbZCVGTv (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Mar 2009 02:19:51 -0400 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:52926 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751000AbZCVGTv (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Mar 2009 02:19:51 -0400 Received: (qmail 9737 invoked by uid 107); 22 Mar 2009 06:20:00 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) SMTP; Sun, 22 Mar 2009 02:20:00 -0400 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sun, 22 Mar 2009 02:19:46 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1237635198-sup-2111@ntdws12.chass.utoronto.ca> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: 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