On Mon, 13 Nov 2000 hubert@feyrer.de wrote:

> > I also don't like the stealth transition from "not" to "NOT". There's no
> > need to shout with these things.
>
> The intention here was to make it a bit clearer if a dependecny cannot be
> met. I guess that can be reverted.

	I actually quite like the 'NOT', to make it more obvious something
	odd/wrong is happening. Actually I wouldn't mind 'make install'
	failing if all dependencies are not found, and have to run
	'make install IGNORE_MISSING_DEPENDS=1' to bypass that.
	(I'd want the failure message to mention IGNORE_MISSING_DEPENDS :)

                David/absolute
			       -- www.netbsd.org: A pmap for every occasion --