Hi Jim, * Jim Meyering wrote on Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 12:33:34PM CET: > Ralf Wildenhues <ralf.wildenh...@gmx.de> wrote: > > > > FWIW, 'make -C' is GNU make-specific, the portable equivalent would be [...] > Thanks for the advice, but I'm beginning to think that it's fine to > give GNU-make-specific hints to coreutils builders who run the tests.
Sure. I merely wanted to ensure this is a conscious decision and not an accident. > Drawing the line between portability and readability is tricky. Absolutely. > However, making assumptions (documented, of course) like requiring > C99 and GNU Make seems to be reasonable, these days, and more sustainable > in the long run. It's probably safe to assume that, when you post GNU make-specific hints, that users who insist on another make implementation will know how to translate. Assuming GNU make for any build is something that many packages may do, but at least for some core packages from the GNU toolchain it is quite frowned upon. Also, there is the BSD camp which simply prefers its own implementations (which I fully respect BTW). Cheers, Ralf _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list Bug-coreutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
