Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Err, what are you trying to do? You have demonstrated here
that with the new make, you can concatenate words, the old make did
not.
[...]
So it seems that it is not possible to make shell commands with line
continuation work with both make
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 09:04:09 +0100, Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Err, what are you trying to do? You have demonstrated here that
with the new make, you can concatenate words, the old make did not.
[...]
So it seems that it is not possible to
Le Vendredi 23 Décembre 2005 09:11, Robert Luberda a écrit :
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005, Daniel Schepler wrote:
Hi,
Yes, a Makefile with
all:
echo 'foo'\
'bar'
will pass to the shell:
(old make) echo 'foo''bar'
(new make) echo 'foo'\
'bar'
And both will echo a single
Daniel Schepler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hopefully this will work on both versions, but again I don't have easy access
to an old make to test it. There's also the suggestion elsewhere in the
thread to put the script in a make variable instead.
I really think that the maintainers of a
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Daniel Schepler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hopefully this will work on both versions, but again I don't have easy
access
to an old make to test it. There's also the suggestion elsewhere in the
thread to put the script in a make variable instead.
I
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 18:24:14 +0100, Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Daniel Schepler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hopefully this will work on both versions, but again I don't have
easy access to an old make to test it. There's also the
suggestion
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 18:24:14 +0100, Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Sorry that i didn't check this - I thought that you, Daniel, were
the make maintainer (thanks Adeodato). The rest of my statement
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 20:17:27 +0100, Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think that the change was made without thoroughly thinking
about it. But in fact it seems as if there are no instructions for
transitioning Makefiles that rely on the
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005, Daniel Schepler wrote:
Hi,
Yes, a Makefile with
all:
echo 'foo'\
'bar'
will pass to the shell:
(old make) echo 'foo''bar'
(new make) echo 'foo'\
'bar'
And both will echo a single word.
Unfortunatelly that's not true: the sarge version of make
prints
2005/12/20, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au:
So the old behaviour's POSIX compatible as long as the Makefile doesn't
specify the .POSIX target.
The real question is, is there a way to allow the old
supported-for-years syntax. With large makefiles it uglyfies the file
somewhat. And
Just a heads up to all packagers out there that I've been seeing a number of
build failures similar to this one (randomly selected from gsfonts-x11):
perl -e 'my $lines=; my $count=0; \
while () { \
next if /^\d+$/; \
$lines.=$_; $count++;
On Dec 20, Daniel Schepler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is due to changes in make 3.80+3.81.b3-1 concerning how the lines are
passed to the shell. Previously, they would be concatenated; now they are
passed verbatim to the shell, backslashes and newlines included (minus the
first tab on
Le Mardi 20 Décembre 2005 14:10, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
On Dec 20, Daniel Schepler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is due to changes in make 3.80+3.81.b3-1 concerning how the lines
are passed to the shell. Previously, they would be concatenated; now
they are passed verbatim to the shell,
Daniel Schepler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le Mardi 20 Décembre 2005 14:10, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
It breaks a widely used feature. Why should this change not be
considered a make bug?
In make's NEWS.Debian.gz it says this change was for POSIX compliance. And
since there's the simple way
Le Mardi 20 Décembre 2005 14:29, Frank Küster a écrit :
Daniel Schepler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le Mardi 20 Décembre 2005 14:10, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
It breaks a widely used feature. Why should this change not be
considered a make bug?
In make's NEWS.Debian.gz it says this change was
Quoting Daniel Schepler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
It breaks a widely used feature. Why should this change not be
considered a make bug?
In make's NEWS.Debian.gz it says this change was for POSIX compliance. And
since there's the simple way to rewrite these things that I outlined, I think
On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 02:19:36PM +0100, Daniel Schepler wrote:
Le Mardi 20 Décembre 2005 14:10, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
On Dec 20, Daniel Schepler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is due to changes in make 3.80+3.81.b3-1 concerning how the lines
are passed to the shell. Previously, they
Daniel Schepler wrote:
One way to fix this is to rewrite the above as:
perl -e 'my $lines=; my $count=0; '\
' while () { '\
'next if /^\d+$/; '\
'$lines.=$_; $count++; '\
...
' print $count\n$lines;' \
18 matches
Mail list logo
