[patch] PH tells crap about GMAKE (Was: Re: svn commit: r340018 - head/textproc/scew)

[Warren Block]

On Mon, 27 Jan 2014, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 05:38:11PM -0700, Warren Block wrote:
>> I would like to be more specific in this part:
>>
>>   Quite often, a specific implementation is required, like GNU make, or
>>   legacy FreeBSD make.
>>
>> I think that should say:
>>
>>   Quite often, a specific implementation is required, like GNU make
>>   (gmake), or legacy FreeBSD make (fmake).
>>
>> Is that correct?
>
> For FreeBSD, technically yes, it is correct; however, in GNU/Linux distros
> GNU make is installed just as "make" (no `g' prefix).  That said, if you
> want to be even more accurate, you could say:
>
>   Quite often, a specific implementation is required, like GNU make
>   (known in &os; as <command>gmake</command>), or legacy &os; make
>   (<command>fmake</command>).

Okay, final version of that paragraph:

         <para>Several differing <literal>make</literal>
           implementations exist.  Ported software often requires a
           particular implementation, like <acronym>GNU</acronym>
           <command>make</command>, known in &os; as
           <command>gmake</command>, or <command>fmake</command>, the
           legacy &os; <command>make</command>.</para>


One last question, and I'll commit this.  The last sentence in this
paragraph:

         <para><varname>MAKE_CMD</varname> can be used to reference the
           specific command configured by the <literal>USES</literal>
           setting in the port's <filename>Makefile</filename>.  In
           rare cases where several different <literal>make</literal>
           implementations are listed in <literal>USES</literal>, the
           variables <varname>GMAKE</varname> (for the
           <acronym>GNU</acronym> version) or <varname>FMAKE</varname>
           (for the legacy &os; version) are available.  Most ports
           should only use <varname>MAKE_CMD</varname> within their
           own <filename>Makefile</filename>s to call the
           <command>make</command> implementation expected by the
           ported software.</para>

It's not really clear what the last sentence is trying to say.  Is it
saying that I might need to modify application Makefiles with MAKE_CMD?
Is it a warning that using MAKE_CMD in the port Makefile is probably a
mistake?