Re: make-bsd, pmake, and /usr/share/mk, oh my

2002-02-20 Thread utsl
On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 08:59:15PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: > So... pmake claims to be "BSD 4.4 make", and in fact appears to be a not- > unreasonable copy of the NetBSD make sources. Is there any particular > reason that the make-bsd and netbsd-mk packages in the chroot can't be > replaced by the

re: make-bsd, pmake, and /usr/share/mk, oh my

2002-02-20 Thread matthew green
> I'd been under the impression that pmake was some sort of parallel make > (though I'm not sure why), so that can probably be assumed to just be me > being stupid. I don't see any reason not to use pmake instead (other than > it being a bit out of date). > >it is. paral

Re: make-bsd, pmake, and /usr/share/mk, oh my

2002-02-20 Thread Tony Finch
> I'd been under the impression that pmake was some sort of parallel make > (though I'm not sure why), so that can probably be assumed to just be me > being stupid. I don't see any reason not to use pmake instead (other than > it being a bit out of date). > >it is. parallel make that is.

re: make-bsd, pmake, and /usr/share/mk, oh my

2002-02-20 Thread matthew green
On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 08:59:15PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: > So... pmake claims to be "BSD 4.4 make", and in fact appears to be a not- > unreasonable copy of the NetBSD make sources. Is there any particular > reason that the make-bsd and netbsd-mk packages in the chroot can't be >

Re: make-bsd, pmake, and /usr/share/mk, oh my

2002-02-20 Thread Matthew Garrett
On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 08:59:15PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: > So... pmake claims to be "BSD 4.4 make", and in fact appears to be a not- > unreasonable copy of the NetBSD make sources. Is there any particular > reason that the make-bsd and netbsd-mk packages in the chroot can't be > replaced by the

re: make-bsd, pmake, and /usr/share/mk, oh my

2002-02-19 Thread matthew green
This leads to the question of keeping pmake in sync with the source version that it's meant to build. Perhaps I need to do a pmake- instead, make it conflict with pmake, and figure out how to do it saner, later... hmmm look for simon gerraty's autoconfistcated pmake -- it's based on

Re: make-bsd, pmake, and /usr/share/mk, oh my

2002-02-19 Thread Joel Baker
On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 03:28:24PM +1100, matthew green wrote: > >On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 03:02:26PM +1100, matthew green wrote: >> >>So... pmake claims to be "BSD 4.4 make", and in fact appears to >>be a not- unreasonable copy of the NetBSD make sources. Is there >>

re: make-bsd, pmake, and /usr/share/mk, oh my

2002-02-19 Thread matthew green
On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 03:02:26PM +1100, matthew green wrote: > >So... pmake claims to be "BSD 4.4 make", and in fact appears to be a not- >unreasonable copy of the NetBSD make sources. Is there any particular >reason that the make-bsd and netbsd-mk packages in the ch

Re: make-bsd, pmake, and /usr/share/mk, oh my

2002-02-19 Thread Joel Baker
On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 03:02:26PM +1100, matthew green wrote: > >So... pmake claims to be "BSD 4.4 make", and in fact appears to be a not- >unreasonable copy of the NetBSD make sources. Is there any particular >reason that the make-bsd and netbsd-mk packages in the chroot can't be >

re: make-bsd, pmake, and /usr/share/mk, oh my

2002-02-19 Thread matthew green
So... pmake claims to be "BSD 4.4 make", and in fact appears to be a not- unreasonable copy of the NetBSD make sources. Is there any particular reason that the make-bsd and netbsd-mk packages in the chroot can't be replaced by the Debian-standard pmake package, if it gets updated (it's

make-bsd, pmake, and /usr/share/mk, oh my

2002-02-19 Thread Joel Baker
So... pmake claims to be "BSD 4.4 make", and in fact appears to be a not- unreasonable copy of the NetBSD make sources. Is there any particular reason that the make-bsd and netbsd-mk packages in the chroot can't be replaced by the Debian-standard pmake package, if it gets updated (it's a few revisi