Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2024 21:28:47 +0200 From: Tomek CEDRO <tomek@cedro.info> To: FreeBSD Questions Mailing List <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: bsd sed / make vs bsd sed / make Message-ID: <CAFYkXjkjWvftBv2DtaYw_cEBJaxoh4%2BZX-2RnsmaUi4BM21WGw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <3DBC8F99-C32B-4AEE-9EB4-99F4CA54DD27@nxg.name> References: <CAFYkXjnq7LB3mhnK4vtQ0p_YJfSU5OOCWgcF6sm64FTCN8gF8Q@mail.gmail.com> <3DBC8F99-C32B-4AEE-9EB4-99F4CA54DD27@nxg.name>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 8:53=E2=80=AFPM Norman Gray wrote: > Tomek, hello. > On 25 Apr 2024, at 18:36, Tomek CEDRO wrote: > > Is there an elegant way to > > use BSD make here with no dramatic code modification? > > As Souji says, this is not easy in general. Resorting to galling gmake f= rom make wouldn't be pretty, but might be necessary. > > The core of GNU Make and pmake/bmake (ie, the FreeBSD version) are the sa= me, and it's not too hard to write a basic Makefile which will work with bo= th implementations. But as soon as you step beyond that core -- ie, as soo= n as you need a non-basic Makefile -- the two go in different directions, a= nd are almost immediately thoroughly incompatible with each other. Yeah, modification of existing gmakefiles is not an option (too many), and there is a cmake implementation worked on, so I will try simple bmake -> gmake wrapper :-) Thanks everyone :-) -- CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAFYkXjkjWvftBv2DtaYw_cEBJaxoh4%2BZX-2RnsmaUi4BM21WGw>