From owner-freebsd-questions Fri Aug 18 20:32:18 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from scientia.demon.co.uk (scientia.demon.co.uk [212.228.14.13]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98E0437B424 for ; Fri, 18 Aug 2000 20:32:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from strontium.scientia.demon.co.uk ([192.168.91.36] ident=root) by scientia.demon.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 13Py0g-000AcS-00; Sat, 19 Aug 2000 03:05:22 +0100 Received: (from ben@localhost) by strontium.scientia.demon.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA53640; Sat, 19 Aug 2000 03:05:22 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from ben) Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 03:05:22 +0100 From: Ben Smithurst To: Chris McNett Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Just curious... Message-ID: <20000819030522.C58928@strontium.scientia.demon.co.uk> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Chris McNett wrote: > Why does the ports collection insist on using BSD make instead of GNU make? > You'd think that the world could agree that GNU make is the more commonly > used of the two and should be the standard. BSD make is better. I'm guessing BSD make is much older too, and the GNU folks made their make gratuitously different to the existing BSD make, just to be different and annoying. I've never seen a GNU makefile for a program which can be as short as PROG= foo .include (I might have missed a line or two, but with the bsd.*.mk files they can be *very* short.) It's much like the fact that Windows is more widely used than FreeBSD, but we all know which is better. -- Ben Smithurst / ben@FreeBSD.org / PGP: 0x99392F7D FreeBSD Documentation Project / To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message