This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: autoconfiscation -- questions about make usage
On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 03:14:45AM -0500, Phil Edwards wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 02:29:39AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > On Tue, 29 Jan 2002, Joe Buck wrote:
> > >
> > > You don't need to use "least common denominator", but ideally any
> > > Posix-compliant make (e.g. BSD Make) should work.
> >
> > Hmm... where the heck do I find a free description of what a make has to
> > do to be POSIX compliant?
>
> Don't know about POSIX per se, but the Single Unix Specification is sort
> of a follow-on to POSIX. Their make(1) page is here:
>
> http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xcu/make.html
>
> Unfortunately, even POSIX make is lacking in handy features. You might
> consider writing comments in the makefile.in where some of the more
> common GNU make features might be used as replacements, should the SC ever
> permit it. (By "more common" I mean extensions which might also exist in
> other make's, like BSD's.)
I maintain that the best approach here would be to include GNU make in
the source tree. Someone else (was it Zack?) had a great deal of
simplification this would enable.
I also think we should have auto* stuff in the tree, for maintainer
convenience, but that's a separate argument (and one to pick up after
we've moved to recent versions of those).
--
Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer