On 3/15/2012 5:24 AM, Mark Wendt wrote: > On 03/14/2012 01:53 PM, Kent A. Reed wrote: >>> <....> >>> >>> >> All well and good, boys and girls, but let's not forget that "clean" and >> "distclean" are not intrinsic functions of make. They are merely targets >> in the Makefile like any other. >> >> It's become a convention to name certain targets "clean", etc., but only >> the Makefile writer can give them the semantics you expect. When in >> doubt, read the file. >> >> Regards, >> Kent >> > Kent, > > Absolutely true. However, I can't remember when the last time I didn't > see at least 'clean' in a Makefile created by 'configure'. > './configure' is what creates most all Makefiles today, and GNU has set > out some standards for what should be in the 'configure' file. Most > 'configure' scripts are now generated by 'autoconf' which does generate > the 'clean' and 'distclean' arguments in the Makefile. > > Mark > > -
I agree, Mark, but I think this is an example of what is called a "shifting baseline" (you can look it up). I not only remember the good old days when every computer maker had its own variation of make and make conventions (and have the scars to prove it), I still have stashed away a corpus of codes I worked on over the years that didn't come through the GNU cookie cutter. The "GNU" world is wondrous. In addition to established conventions, it has made it possible for me to take substantial packages and, without working up a sweat, get them to run on everything from a muscular AMD/x86 PC to a wimpy embedded ARM. Still, I live by Benny Hill's favorite saying, "do not assume, it makes an ass out of u and me." Regards, Kent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF email is sponsosred by: Try Windows Azure free for 90 days Click Here http://p.sf.net/sfu/sfd2d-msazure _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
