Re: make -- generate missing include files

Robert Clausecker <[email protected]> writes:

> "include file" as in "makefile fragment included through a include or
> similar directive."  For example, our distribution comes without a bunch
> of symlinks needed to build it (as some platforms do not support symlinks),
> so the makefile has content like this to generate the symbolic links if
> needed:

Thanks; I did not parse "include file" that way.  I see the point now.

>> From the pkgsrc viewpoint, using gmake as a build tool is not a big
>> deal.  Many things do, so it gets built anyway on most systems.  I feel
>> that avoiding a gmake tool depends for schilytools is not a tremendous
>> gain, compared to the effort, possible architectural issues, and future
>> maintenance involved in adding a feature (that I am pretty sure is not
>> mandated by POSIX) into bmake.
>
> This is not specifically about pkgsrc, but rather about making it easier
> to build schilytools in general.  We ship a "bootstrap smake" that can
> be used to build the project if not sufficiently powerful make is
> present, but it would be much nicer if that was not needed on the many
> platforms that use bmake.

I can see your point, but from the viewpoint of "how to deal with
building random software X on NetBSD", we are very used to "first, make
sure you have gmake".

Perhaps someone who might actually contemplate adding a feature to bmake
will comment now that this is more understandable.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iF0EARECAB0WIQS7wyAjWilQwVHG9Vsf2nroCY7WDgUCY2fj0AAKCRAf2nroCY7W
DibAAJ9WVBeUwsSrHkBjP5WOCU8mXNJY1ACeIXa/GXnYSe5l7rhL61YXS2bKsl4=
=QRl/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----