Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 19:32:38 +1000 From: Peter Jeremy <PeterJeremy@optushome.com.au> To: Harti Brandt <harti@freebsd.org> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Handling of shell builtins in make(1) Message-ID: <20050524093238.GC12640@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> In-Reply-To: <42929680.3000309@samsco.org> References: <20050523153118.C28521@beagle.kn.op.dlr.de> <42929680.3000309@samsco.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 2005-May-23 20:50:40 -0600, Scott Long wrote: >Harti Brandt wrote: >>The result of this is that for one and the same command you can get >>different behaviour whether you execute it via make(1) or via sh -c '...'. Not to mention the effect of IFS. Does POSIX provide any helpful suggestions on how to efficiently implement the behaviour they specify? >4. Separate /bin/sh into a front end and back end (libsh) and include >libsh into make. And this still won't help people who use .SHELL (or similar) to pick a different shell. 5) Add a "POSIX_ME_HARDER" option that just invokes the shell on every command. In the absence of this option, make(1) is free to directly exec the command if it's simple enough. 6) Add two new magic line markers (to supplement '@', '+' and '-') to require the line be executed using the shell or exec'd directly, superceding the buildin rules. -- Peter Jeremy
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050524093238.GC12640>