On Sun, May 27, 2007 at 03:30:48PM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > > That said, I'll ask this out in the open: am I the only one who sees the > benefit of GNU make in regards to this? There's a lot of built-in > functions in GNU make which could help in regards to ports. I have no > qualms with PMake per se, but if another tool gives us what we need, > then maybe we should consider the pros and cons of adapting that. > There's also CMake, which is incredibly fast.
Yes, you are. What gmake benefits? Gmake does not provide the flexibility and power that pmake provides. Off the top of my head: gmake does not have ".for" loops, variable expansion modifiers, or even the "!=" shell command variable assigment. I use these in almost every Makefile I write, and the ports uses these things quite a bit. Also, gmake syntax is horrendous compared to pmake. People are already complaining about how ugly the ports makefiles are-- they'd be worse under gmake. Might as well rewrite the whole infrastructure in /bin/sh ... Also, there's the licensing issues. Remember-- any significant changes to this infrastructure has to work with the core utilities.. this leaves out gmake, python, ruby, etc. I doubt anyone will find anything as powerful as pmake without sacrificing the much-used flexibility it provides. -- Rick C. Petty _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
