On Sun, Jun 02, 2002 at 08:33:08PM -0600, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
> We are POSIX compliant right now (I think -- I haven't done a strict
> comparison between (our) BSD make and POSIX). BSD does have things that
> aren't in POSIX, as does GNUmake. Removing the historical BSD syntax
> would just break things, so I wouldn't advocate that.
Neither would I; claiming that strict POSIX-compliance is the end-all goal
makes no sense imo.
> We can depricate
> the BSD extensions if that seems useful. That's not the same as adding
> new incompatible extensions to make (ours, GNUs, or anyone elses).
My proposal for adding $^ as an alias for $> does not add any
incompatibilities, neither with POSIX nor with any existing BSD make. Only
Terry has said that BSD make used to use $^ but so far he hasn't shown any
proof that this is still in use anywhere.
> Writing portable makefiles is already enough of a pain in the ass.
Writing Makefiles is a pain, period.
> --lyndon (death to feeping creaturism!)
>
> (And yes, I would really miss the BSD/GNU if/then/else makefile
> constructs if we went POSIX-anal on this.)
Needless to say, I'm certainly not advocating that we do this.
--
Jos Backus _/ _/_/_/ Santa Clara, CA
_/ _/ _/
_/ _/_/_/
_/ _/ _/ _/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _/_/ _/_/_/ use Std::Disclaimer;
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
