[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: bsd building
From: |
Jason Stover |
Subject: |
Re: bsd building |
Date: |
Mon, 3 Oct 2005 23:26:19 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.4.2.1i |
> Not understanding Automatic variables is a severe limitation for a makefile.
> Perhaps we could work around it for now, but I'm sure it'd come back and bite
> us in the future. (for example if we built using a virtual transparent
> filesystem).
>
I checked in a fix for this because BSD make complained that the
automatic variable $< should be used only in an implied rule. The GNU
make manual said this too, though it did not specifcally say
using $< with a non-implied rule would break GNU make, in contrast to
BSD make. So I replaced $< with the names of the respective
dependencies. I am not that familiar with make, so please let me know
if I broke anything. All targets on both GNU/Linux and OpenBSD compiled
before I checked in the fix. (And I apologize for the mispelling of
'implied' in the log.)
I believe the BSD make will understand $< if the rule that uses it
is an implied rule.
> From the GNU Maintainers Document (
> http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/Platforms.html#Platforms ):
>
> Supporting other platforms is optional --- we do it when that seems
> like a good idea, but we don't consider it obligatory. If the users
> don't take care of a certain platform, you may have to desupport it
> unless and until users come forward to help. Conversely, if a user
> offers changes to support an additional platform, you will probably
> want to install them, but you don't have to. If you feel the changes
> are complex and ugly, if you think that they will increase the burden
> of future maintenance, you can and should reject them.
>
> So I guess it's a decision for Jason, since he's the only active person on
> this list who has access to BSD. --- Jason, are you willing to take
> responsibility for future BSD maintenance?
This particular problem had an easy fix (assuming I didn't commit any
sins I'm unaware of), so I didn't mind doing it. I don't mind fixing
little problems in the makefiles, but I don't know enough to fix big
problems.
>
>
> PS. Some years ago I wrote a autoconf macro to test if a implementation of
> MAKE was GNU or something else. The autoconf maintainer declined to
> include it on the grounds of limited usefulness, but I think it's
> packaged somewhere in a compendium of 3rd party macros. Try googling
> if you think it'll be useful.
I will keep this in mind if I encounter any more difficulties with make.
-Jason
--
address@hidden
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org