From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Dec 2 20:51:41 1995 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id UAA19081 for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 2 Dec 1995 20:51:41 -0800 Received: from bubba.tribe.com ([205.184.207.7]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id UAA19074 for ; Sat, 2 Dec 1995 20:51:21 -0800 Received: (from archie@localhost) by bubba.tribe.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA04684; Sat, 2 Dec 1995 20:50:29 -0800 From: Archie Cobbs Message-Id: <199512030450.UAA04684@bubba.tribe.com> Subject: Re: Minor change to make To: kaleb@x.org (Kaleb S. KEITHLEY) Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 20:50:28 -0800 (PST) Cc: hackers@freefall.freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <199512022227.WAA14667@exalt.x.org> from "Kaleb S. KEITHLEY" at Dec 2, 95 05:27:40 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 891 Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk > > > N.B. ClearMake, SGI, and Digital, makes all have include directives that > > > silently ignore a failure to find the include file, so this isn't a new > > > > ...as does gmake (which is available as a package), so you could use it > > if you wanted to avoid rebuilding /usr/bin/make... > > Humbug again. > > Since it's 99&44/100ths of the way there already, why should I have to > tell people to go get gmake? Why can't the make that comes with the (next > release of the) system "just do it"? Hey, wait a minute, I agree with you! The FreeBSD make ought to have this feature; in fact, I definately would argue for it as well. I didn't mean to imply that you *should* use gmake, just that you *could*. :-) -Archie _______________________________________________________________________________ Archie L. Cobbs, archie@tribe.com * Tribe Computer Works http://www.tribe.com