Date: Sat, 02 Dec 1995 17:27:40 EDT From: "Kaleb S. KEITHLEY" <kaleb@x.org> To: hackers@freefall.FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Minor change to make Message-ID: <199512022227.WAA14667@exalt.x.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of Sat, 02 Dec 1995 13:40:11 EDT. <199512022140.NAA02289@bubba.tribe.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > I want make to silently ignore a failure to find a .include file. The > > reason I want this is because in the next release of X imake will generate > > Makefiles that can use include files for dependencies if the system's make > > supports it. > > > > N.B. ClearMake, SGI, and Digital, makes all have include directives that > > silently ignore a failure to find the include file, so this isn't a new > > ...as does gmake (which is available as a package), so you could use it > if you wanted to avoid rebuilding /usr/bin/make... > Humbug again. Since it's 99&44/100ths of the way there already, why should I have to tell people to go get gmake? Why can't the make that comes with the (next release of the) system "just do it"? I've had a fair number of bug-reports submitted by people who insist on using 100% gnu. gnu make, gnu ld, gnu as; even when the tools that came with their system are more than adequate. They tell me that gmake had an error, gnu ld won't link their shared libs on SunOS; doctor, it hurts when I go like this. I don't want to be in the business of telling people to get and use gmake, because then when it doesn't work, they'll expect me to make it work. I'd rather tell them to use the one that came with the system because it's known to work. -- Kaleb KEITHLEY X Consortium
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199512022227.WAA14667>