On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 07:42:28PM -0700, Jos Backus wrote:
> The GNU make info file says:
>
> `$^'
> The names of all the prerequisites, with spaces between them. For
> prerequisites which are archive members, only the member named is
> used (*note Archives::). A target has only
On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 11:46:03PM -0500, Dan Nelson wrote:
> Automake avoids the issue entirely by simply listing the dependencies
> itself, so
>
> > envuidgid: envuidgid.o
> > $(CC) $(LDFLAGS) -o $@ $^
>
> becomes
>
> > $(CC) $(LDFLAGS) -o $@ envuidgid.o
This is not always possible.
nal steps and it will generates
auto-depend rule before compiling real source code.
David Xu
- Original Message -
From: "Terry Lambert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: Improving GNU m
Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
> Writing portable makefiles is already enough of a pain in the ass.
No. It's not. I've written Makefile's that predate the
consolidation during and after The UNIX Wars; they run fine,
unmodified, on 140 different vendor versions of UNIX.
You are smearing the necessary
Jos Backus wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 02, 2002 at 08:07:16PM -0600, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
> > --lyndon (who doesn't understand why this is an issue, after having
> > just converted a *whole* lot of source to work with
> > POSIX make. Standards? Who gives a f*** (I guess ...))
>
> I
Sergey Babkin wrote:
> I would really like all the existing make branches (BSD, GNU, SVR4)
> converge to a single syntax. Otherwise it's too much pain, and the
> only workaround is either to use only the classic V7 make features
> or write makefiles for gmake since it's readily available on all
>
On Sun, Jun 02, 2002 at 11:28:49PM -0600, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
> > "Jos" == Jos Backus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Jos> My proposal for adding $^ as an alias for $> does not add any
> Jos> incompatibilities, neither with POSIX nor with any existing BSD
> Jos> make.
>
> Yes
> "Jos" == Jos Backus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jos> My proposal for adding $^ as an alias for $> does not add any
Jos> incompatibilities, neither with POSIX nor with any existing BSD
Jos> make.
Yes, and no. Adding new features doesn't break existing code, but it
encourages new
On Sun, Jun 02, 2002 at 10:39:02PM -0600, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
> > "Jos" == Jos Backus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> Writing portable makefiles is already enough of a pain in the
> >> ass.
> Jos> Writing Makefiles is a pain, period.
>
> Writing makefiles is easy. Writing
> "Jos" == Jos Backus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Writing portable makefiles is already enough of a pain in the
>> ass.
Jos> Writing Makefiles is a pain, period.
Writing makefiles is easy. Writing *portable* makefiles is a pain.
There *is* a difference.
--lyndon
To Unsubscri
On Sun, Jun 02, 2002 at 08:33:08PM -0600, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
> We are POSIX compliant right now (I think -- I haven't done a strict
> comparison between (our) BSD make and POSIX). BSD does have things that
> aren't in POSIX, as does GNUmake. Removing the historical BSD syntax
> would just bre
> "Jos" == Jos Backus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jos> I just checked the Open Group make definition and I can't find
Jos> either $^ or $>. So if we want to be truly standards-compliant
Jos> perhaps we should remove support for $> :-)
We are POSIX compliant right now (I think --
On Sun, Jun 02, 2002 at 08:07:16PM -0600, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
> --lyndon (who doesn't understand why this is an issue, after having
> just converted a *whole* lot of source to work with
> POSIX make. Standards? Who gives a f*** (I guess ...))
I just checked the Open Group ma
> "Sergey" == Sergey Babkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Sergey> I would really like all the existing make branches (BSD,
Sergey> GNU, SVR4) converge to a single syntax. Otherwise it's too
Sergey> much pain, and the only workaround is either to use only the
Sergey> classic V7 m
Terry Lambert wrote:
>
> Jos Backus wrote:
> > On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 01:38:17AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > > The biggest problem with GNU make that I've seen is re-expansion
> > > of variable variables.
> > >
> > > The suggested fix doesn't address that, so it won't fix the most
> > > comm
Jos Backus wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 01, 2002 at 11:45:15AM -0600, Ian wrote:
> > Actually, I think it's a great idea. It should make life much easier for
> > people creating and maintaining ports.
>
> My thoughts exactly.
Any port that switches to BSD make because the Makefile uses
this *one* GNU m
Ian wrote:
> On 05/31/02 19:53, Jos Backus wrote:
> > Fyi: it appears nobody is really interested in having BSD make and GNU make
> > converge a little, so I am not going waste any more time on this.
>
> Actually, I think it's a great idea. It should make life much easier for
> people creating a
On Sat, Jun 01, 2002 at 11:45:15AM -0600, Ian wrote:
> Actually, I think it's a great idea. It should make life much easier for
> people creating and maintaining ports.
My thoughts exactly.
> The tone of Terry's reply to your mail seemed to be "My opinion is the only
> one that counts here and
On 05/31/02 19:53, Jos Backus wrote:
> Fyi: it appears nobody is really interested in having BSD make and GNU make
> converge a little, so I am not going waste any more time on this.
Actually, I think it's a great idea. It should make life much easier for
people creating and maintaining ports.
On Sat, Jun 01, 2002 at 01:37:43AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Jos Backus wrote:
> > I hope you don't see any problems with generally improving compatibility
> > between the two?
>
> As long as any changes do not conflict with OpenBSD "make", NetBSD
> "make", BSDi "make", Darwin "make", or "OP
Jos Backus wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 01, 2002 at 01:14:18AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > Jos Backus wrote:
> > > Fyi: it appears nobody is really interested in having BSD make and GNU make
> > > converge a little, so I am not going waste any more time on this.
> >
> > I'm really against GNU-ifying B
On Sat, Jun 01, 2002 at 01:14:18AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Jos Backus wrote:
> > Fyi: it appears nobody is really interested in having BSD make and GNU make
> > converge a little, so I am not going waste any more time on this.
>
> I'm really against GNU-ifying BSD make.
I hope you don't se
Jos Backus wrote:
> Fyi: it appears nobody is really interested in having BSD make and GNU make
> converge a little, so I am not going waste any more time on this.
I'm really against GNU-ifying BSD make.
Unless you're getting a lot of off-list hate-mail for the idea,
though, my count is 2/2(incl
On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 10:05:27PM -0700, Jos Backus wrote:
> That's a good idea, thanks. I just sent an e-mail coining the concept to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fyi, I just sent a patch to to help-make; who knows Paul may accept it.
--- expand.c.orig Mon Jun 19 13:23:35 2000
+++ expand.cSat
In the last episode (May 31), Jos Backus said:
> On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 11:46:03PM -0500, Dan Nelson wrote:
> > Automake avoids the issue entirely by simply listing the dependencies
> > itself, so
> >
> > > envuidgid: envuidgid.o
> > > $(CC) $(LDFLAGS) -o $@ $^
> >
> > becomes
> >
> > > $(
On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 11:46:03PM -0500, Dan Nelson wrote:
> That doesn't fix Tru64 make, which uses $> like BSD make, or Solaris
> make, which has neither. In fact, based on this sample, I suggest you
> submit a patch to the gmake people adding $>, which obviously is the
> defacto standard :)
In the last episode (May 31), Jos Backus said:
> On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 06:55:54PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
> > On Fri, 31 May 2002, Jos Backus wrote:
> > > Fyi: it appears nobody is really interested in having BSD make
> > > and GNU make converge a little, so I am not going waste any more
>
On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 06:55:54PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
> what would you want to do?
>
> On Fri, 31 May 2002, Jos Backus wrote:
>
> > Fyi: it appears nobody is really interested in having BSD make and GNU make
> > converge a little, so I am not going waste any more time on this.
BSD ma
what would you want to do?
On Fri, 31 May 2002, Jos Backus wrote:
> Fyi: it appears nobody is really interested in having BSD make and GNU make
> converge a little, so I am not going waste any more time on this.
>
> --
> Jos Backus _/ _/_/_/Santa Clara, CA
>
Fyi: it appears nobody is really interested in having BSD make and GNU make
converge a little, so I am not going waste any more time on this.
--
Jos Backus _/ _/_/_/Santa Clara, CA
_/ _/ _/
_/ _/_/_/
Jos Backus wrote:
> On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 01:38:17AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > The biggest problem with GNU make that I've seen is re-expansion
> > of variable variables.
> >
> > The suggested fix doesn't address that, so it won't fix the most
> > common "compatability problem".
>
> So wh
On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 01:38:17AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> The biggest problem with GNU make that I've seen is re-expansion
> of variable variables.
>
> The suggested fix doesn't address that, so it won't fix the most
> common "compatability problem".
So what? It fixes (in a backward-compa
Jos Backus wrote:
> So BSD make interpreting either `$^' or `$+' as its own `$>' would improve
> compatibility with GNU make Makefiles. I am just not sure which of the two GNU
> make variables maps better to our `$>'. This patch implements the former:
The biggest problem with GNU make that I've s
The GNU make info file says:
`$^'
The names of all the prerequisites, with spaces between them. For
prerequisites which are archive members, only the member named is
used (*note Archives::). A target has only one prerequisite on
each other file it depends on, no matter how m
34 matches
Mail list logo
