On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 10:31:27PM +0000, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> In article <20170617222558.ga24...@britannica.bec.de>,
> Joerg Sonnenberger <jo...@bec.de> wrote:
> >On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 12:22:13AM +0200, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
> >> On 18.06.2017 00:16, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> >> > In article <20170617213136.ga21...@britannica.bec.de>,
> >> > Joerg Sonnenberger <jo...@bec.de> wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 05:28:07PM -0400, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> >> >>> On Jun 17, 9:38pm, jo...@bec.de (Joerg Sonnenberger) wrote:
> >> >>> -- Subject: Re: CVS commit: src/usr.bin/make
> >> >>>
> >> >>> | Agreed, please revert. This was discussed at the time and FreeBSD
> >> >>> | behavior you have now implemented is much less useful.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> You can get the original with -V '\VAR'
> >> >>
> >> >> That's no better than the behavior before.
> >> >
> >> > Now you get:
> >> >
> >> > $ make -V MACHINE_CPU
> >> > arm
> >> > $ make -V \\MACHINE_CPU
> >> >
> >${MACHINE_ARCH:C/mipse[bl]/mips/:C/mips64e[bl]/mips/:C/sh3e[bl]/sh3/:S/coldfire/m68k/:S/m68000/m68k/:C/arm.*/arm/:C/earm.*/arm/:S/earm/arm/:S/powerpc64/powerpc/:S/aarch64eb/aarch64/:S/or1knd/or1k/:C/riscv../riscv/}
> >> >
> >> > The second is the original version.
> >> >
> >> > christos
> >> >
> >>
> >> How about "make -V" getting the original behavior and "make -VV"
> >> resulting with evaluated one?
> >
> >I find -V '${foo}' a perfectly reasonable way to spell it, especially
> >since it works consistently with modifiers. No need for more complexity.
>
> And it still does. You cannot use -VV because of getopt(3). You can use
> a different letter. The complexity is when I get this long string instead
> of the evaluated variable.
Please do not unilaterally change behavior. Especially if it has been
discussed in the past. This is rude at best and not everyone shares your
opinion.
Joerg
