Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 08:00:45 -0600 From: "Matthew D. Fuller" <fullermd@over-yonder.net> To: Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav <des@des.no> Cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: which make in freebsd? Message-ID: <20031103140044.GA4241@over-yonder.net> In-Reply-To: <xzpznfdeth8.fsf@dwp.des.no> References: <20031102010136.44997855.beyert@cs.ucr.edu> <xzpfzh6apma.fsf@dwp.des.no> <3FA5EC15.2C7F1656@emailrob.com> <xzpznfdeth8.fsf@dwp.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 09:39:31AM +0100 I heard the voice of Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav, and lo! it spake thus: > rob spellberg <emailrob@emailrob.com> writes: > > Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav wrote: > > > gmake is inferior in most ways that matter. > > why? > > Most noticeably, the lack of .for / .endfor. I've always found intense irritation at its lack of ability to apply more than one transformation to a variable, necessitating a whole bunch of intermediate variables. It doesn't use '.'s on various commands like 'include'. It's irritatingly different in the names of some of the special variables... I have a few projects going where I've through sheer cussedness refused to stop using bmake, but need the impaired folks using Linux systems to be able to build too, so I've ended up writing scripts to either convert the Makefile into a GNUmakefile, or scripts to take a proto-Makefile and convert it to both formats. PITA. (those aren't, before anybody asks, general scripts; they only cover the constructs I used) -- Matthew Fuller (MF4839) | fullermd@over-yonder.net Systems/Network Administrator | http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/ "The only reason I'm burning my candle at both ends, is because I haven't figured out how to light the middle yet"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031103140044.GA4241>