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 -- 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
