From owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 27 12:17:51 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: doc@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 25D0DA74; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 12:17:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wonkity.com (wonkity.com [67.158.26.137]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B16F51262; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 12:17:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wonkity.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wonkity.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s0RCHlXM037064; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 05:17:47 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from localhost (wblock@localhost) by wonkity.com (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) with ESMTP id s0RCHlte037061; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 05:17:47 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 05:17:47 -0700 (MST) From: Warren Block To: Alexey Dokuchaev Subject: Re: [patch] PH tells crap about GMAKE (Was: Re: svn commit: r340018 - head/textproc/scew) In-Reply-To: <20140127085527.GA84465@FreeBSD.org> Message-ID: References: <201401170910.s0H9Aw9O087448@svn.freebsd.org> <20140117093546.GA16656@FreeBSD.org> <20140117095020.GD4006@gahrfit.gahr.ch> <20140117141440.GA94157@FreeBSD.org> <20140127085527.GA84465@FreeBSD.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (wonkity.com [127.0.0.1]); Mon, 27 Jan 2014 05:17:47 -0700 (MST) Cc: doc@freebsd.org, Pietro Cerutti X-BeenThere: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Documentation project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 12:17:51 -0000 On Mon, 27 Jan 2014, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 05:38:11PM -0700, Warren Block wrote: >> I would like to be more specific in this part: >> >> Quite often, a specific implementation is required, like GNU make, or >> legacy FreeBSD make. >> >> I think that should say: >> >> Quite often, a specific implementation is required, like GNU make >> (gmake), or legacy FreeBSD make (fmake). >> >> Is that correct? > > For FreeBSD, technically yes, it is correct; however, in GNU/Linux distros > GNU make is installed just as "make" (no `g' prefix). That said, if you > want to be even more accurate, you could say: > > Quite often, a specific implementation is required, like GNU make > (known in &os; as gmake), or legacy &os; make > (fmake). Okay, final version of that paragraph: Several differing make implementations exist. Ported software often requires a particular implementation, like GNU make, known in &os; as gmake, or fmake, the legacy &os; make. One last question, and I'll commit this. The last sentence in this paragraph: MAKE_CMD can be used to reference the specific command configured by the USES setting in the port's Makefile. In rare cases where several different make implementations are listed in USES, the variables GMAKE (for the GNU version) or FMAKE (for the legacy &os; version) are available. Most ports should only use MAKE_CMD within their own Makefiles to call the make implementation expected by the ported software. It's not really clear what the last sentence is trying to say. Is it saying that I might need to modify application Makefiles with MAKE_CMD? Is it a warning that using MAKE_CMD in the port Makefile is probably a mistake?