From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Nov 12 12:20:59 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA17158 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 12:20:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from gershwin.tera.com (gershwin.tera.com [207.224.230.28]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA17142 for ; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 12:20:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kline@tao.thought.org) Received: from tao.thought.org (tao.tera.com [207.108.223.55]) by gershwin.tera.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA15685; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 12:20:17 -0800 (PST) Received: (from kline@localhost) by tao.thought.org (8.8.8/8.7.3) id MAA09113; Thu, 12 Nov 1998 12:20:05 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <19981112122005.C7958@thought.org> Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 12:20:05 -0800 From: Gary Kline To: David Holland , Joel Ray Holveck Cc: kline@tao.thought.org, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: bsd make to gnu make conversion, anyone?? References: <86hfw5ie8q.fsf@detlev.UUCP> <98Nov12.141220edt.37768-2936@qew.cs.toronto.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i In-Reply-To: <98Nov12.141220edt.37768-2936@qew.cs.toronto.edu>; from David Holland on Thu, Nov 12, 1998 at 02:12:14PM -0500 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, Nov 12, 1998 at 02:12:14PM -0500, David Holland wrote: > > This is the cleanest solution. Still, if you want alternatives, I > > haven't tried this, but foreach may work here, as a generalization of > > for: > > > > define do-lang > > $(lang).mv.cat: $(.CURDIR)/nls/$(lang)/mv.msg > > gencat -new $(.TARGET) $(.ALLSRC) > > endef > > $(foreach lang,$(LANGS),$(do-lang)) > > eww. > > I didn't know this would work. As written it doesn't. I carefully tried it in a test case late last night. But it may after I've played around with it; tweaked it. > > I wish someone would add support for bsd make syntax to gmake. > What? and make life simple? > (Before you tell me to put my code where my mouth is, I looked into > this at one point and concluded it would take me longer to figure out > how gmake's parser worked than to write a whole new make. So I > didn't. Why doesn't it use yacc?) I've never looked at the guts, but one of our hackers did; added some features. Not adding the BSD syntax, obviously. .... > > > What's wrong with using sh like God intended? > > Two reasons; one that issuing complex shell commands makes make -n > output less useful (for an extreme case of this, try make -n install > in gnu binutils), and the other that when you do loops in the shell > they don't always terminate on error like you (usually) want. > > For install this may not be that significant, but when you're doing > recursion into subdirectories it sucketh. Hard. > Hm. When I've figured it out, I'll share. gary -- Gary D. Kline kline@tao.thought.org Public service uNix To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message