Date: Sat, 02 Dec 1995 18:24:01 EDT From: "Kaleb S. KEITHLEY" <kaleb@x.org> To: hackers@freefall.FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Minor change to make Message-ID: <199512022324.XAA14699@exalt.x.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of Sat, 02 Dec 1995 13:53:19 EDT. <199512022153.NAA18484@multivac.orthanc.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Is is possible for you to use the ".if !exists(...)" construct > instead? As long as you know the path (relative or absolute) to > the include this should solve the problem without introducing > an incompatible change to make. It happens to work, but I don't see it as equivalent. According to the man page `.if exists(file)' has different file search semantics than `.include "file"'. How do I know someone won't put 'depend.mk' in /usr/share/mk some day? I just don't feel that lucky. :-) Nor do I agree that this is an incompatible change, and that not withstanding I did say that I was willing to do the work to add this functionality as a new feature that would preserve the legacy behavior. I know hacking make isn't as sexy as writing file systems, schedulers, MS-DOS emulators, and linux binary compat; but I don't understand the resistance to adding this? For as many times as I build X, it would save a bunch of time for me if I didn't have to rebuild the dependencies every time I remake the Makefile because I am able to preserve them in an include file. If it's useful to me I'm sure it'd be useful to someone else too. -- Kaleb KEITHLEY X Consortium
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199512022324.XAA14699>