From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Mar 24 22:36:47 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id WAA08347 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 24 Mar 1995 22:36:47 -0800 Received: from trout.sri.MT.net (trout.sri.MT.net [204.182.243.12]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id WAA08339; Fri, 24 Mar 1995 22:36:42 -0800 Received: (from nate@localhost) by trout.sri.MT.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) id XAA26761; Fri, 24 Mar 1995 23:40:42 -0700 Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 23:40:42 -0700 From: Nate Williams Message-Id: <199503250640.XAA26761@trout.sri.MT.net> In-Reply-To: "Andrey A. Chernov, Black Mage" "Re: httpd as part of the system." (Mar 25, 2:49am) X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92) To: "Andrey A. Chernov, Black Mage" , "Jordan K. Hubbard" Subject: Gnu Make ( was Re: httpd as part of the system.) Cc: hackers@freefall.cdrom.com Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > I think, we can add gmake to gnu tree, but have all stuff bmaked :-) Adding two tools that do essentially the same thing to the tree is asking for trouble. It's also adding un-needed bloat to the tree. Finally, by requiring functionality that only exists in GNU make, you are making the BSD tree completely dependant on non-BSD software. Currently we have a big dependency on GCC, *but* we can pull gcc at anytime (losing shlib ability agreed) and replace it with a different compiler (lcc comes to mind, though it's not yet released publically) and the tree still builds. However, we can't replace the make utility with a different one and expect it to work if we use features specific to GNU-make. If you need those specific features, add them to BSD-make so that we have a tool that is useful. If we keep adding GNU code to the tree we'll become another Linux, and our main differences up to this point have been the copyright style. Yes in comparison to NetBSD we have a lot more GNU stuff, but those parts are not critical to the running/building of the system. Nate