John Darrington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 10:03:36AM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote: > Jason Stover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Building on OpenBSD is still a bit of a pain. The > > default make is not GNU make, so I had to install GNU > > make because the BSD make does not like $< somewhere > > in the makefile, > > I think we should fix this problem. > > Not understanding Automatic variables is a severe limitation for a makefile. > Perhaps we could work around it for now, but I'm sure it'd come back and bite > us in the future. (for example if we built using a virtual transparent > filesystem).
This is a less of a problem than you think. Some "make" programs understand automatic variables in implicit rules, but not in explicit rules. I used $< in explicit rules without thinking about it, and this broke OpenBSD's make. I see that Jason committed a patch that presumably fixes the problem earlier today. > Our Makefiles should be portable, because it is not difficult to > make them portable, and Automake does most of the work for us. > But libraries are more system dependent; they're not standardized > as well as POSIX make. > > Several years ago, I gave up trying to create portable makefiles, except very > trivial ones. There's so many caveats. Automake does most of the work for us. We just have to be careful when we write rules. I don't think we do anything fancy with Makefiles that would require the use of GNU make. -- On Perl: "It's as if H.P. Lovecraft, returned from the dead and speaking by seance to Larry Wall, designed a language both elegant and terrifying for his Elder Things to write programs in, and forgot that the Shoggoths didn't turn out quite so well in the long run." --Matt Olson _______________________________________________ pspp-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pspp-dev
