* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 12:41:21AM CEST: > At Tuesday 20 April 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > Yeah, the make has a .l.o rule that triggers before our .l.c and > > .c.o rule chains. > Do you know if this happens also with Solaris make, or is just a quirk > specific to heirloom-make?
It doesn't fail with Solaris 9 make. > > [FROM ANOTHER MAIL] > > Where can I get this heirloom-make? Is there a Debian package for > > it? > For the record, heirloom make is part of the Heirloom project > <http://heirloom.sourceforge.net/>, Thanks. This is really really low priority. Basically nobody uses that because they have to. > > I'm not bound to bother much with this issue because no user is > > forced to pain herself with heirloom-make (and even Solaris make is > > better). > Well, I'm using heirloom-make for testing purposes only, since it > seems to be the most Solaris-like make implementation easily available > also on GNU/Linux. If you have a pointer to a similar make > implementation without the heirloom-specific quirks, I'd be happy to > use it instead. Yes: Solaris make. I'm guessing OpenSolaris version is derived from that. > > I guess this could be worked around by adding explicit rules (at > > least that's what SUSv3 recommends), maybe explicit dependencies > > without rules suffice. I'm not sure we should spend time on this > > old make, though. > I think you're right. Maybe the best solution for the present problem > would be to properly divide `silent5.test' into many, more specific > tests (e.g. one for c++, one for fortran, one for lex etc.), and then > skip the Lex/Yacc test(s) if a buggy make is detected. No, why? The test fails for a reason. The 'make' is not buggy wrt. Posix, it works as documented. There is no reason to not let the test fail. I've already noted earlier how to address the problem: help the 'make' by producing explicit rules, either without or with commands; you could try to find out whether it is sufficient to not specify the rules. Cheers, Ralf
