On Sun, Oct 07, 2012 at 03:40:19PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Sun, Oct 07, 2012 at 01:39:32PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > ... > >> but it is not so far-fetched to imagine that Windows users may want to > >> omit manpages with > >> > >> $ DEFAULT_DOC_TARGET=html make doc > > > > That use case makes a lot more sense to me (or more likely setting it in > > config.mak). > > I actually had "ifeq ($(uname_S),Windows)" at the top-level in mind, > not config.mak. I think that is far more important use case than > going down to Documentation yourself and run make there (which is > not a workflow I deeply care about in the first place). Hmm. Unfortunately that does not work from within Documentation, because Documentation/Makefile never gets to see our default-system tweaks (it sees only config.mak). I know it is a case you do not care about (and nor do I; if I use this at all, it would be to limit my build by setting the variable in my config.mak), but it highlights a subtle issue. The subdir Makefiles receive their config from config.mak.autogen and config.mak, but never get to see any of the default tweaks we do based on $(uname). Which the contents of config.mak could very well depend on, if somebody were trying to be very clever. Would it make sense to pull all of our platform-specific tweaks out into a config.mak.platform (right before config.mak.autogen)? That would be less surprising for cases like this, and I think it would make the Makefile a lot more readable. -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html