Gunnar Ritter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
_If_ they claim that. Otherwise they rely on documented behavior of
GNU make. This is quite different from the authors implement code
that matches GNU make bugs, as you were writing previously.
The GNU make documentation claims that $ is the name
Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- The second sentnce is just in violation with POSIX.
POSIX implicit rules are .SUFFIX: rules only a for this reason only have a
target that is a concatenation of source and target suffix. There is no
prerequisite but only an implicit target and
Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-The second sentnce is just in violation with POSIX.
POSIX implicit rules are .SUFFIX: rules only a for this reason only have a
target that is a concatenation of source and target suffix. There is no
prerequisite but only an implicit target and
Gunnar Ritter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any makefile that uses $ in an explicit rule is dubtlessly broken if it
claims to be portable and authors of free software usually claim to
write portable software.
_If_ they claim that. Otherwise they rely
Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gunnar Ritter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any makefile that uses $ in an explicit rule is dubtlessly broken if it
claims to be portable and authors of free software usually claim to
write portable software.
On 7/18/05, Gunnar Ritter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gunnar Ritter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any makefile that uses $ in an explicit rule is dubtlessly broken if it
claims to be portable and authors of
James Dickens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that there needs to be a separateion between OpenSolaris
source and the software base sources. So how about something simple ?
Each distribution would be free to keep there own source management
location/solution, this would only expect a
Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 12:29, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Smake warns about all illegal Makefile content. If you dowmload the latest
illegal according to which standard document and version ?
Please give a
On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 12:54:49PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
If a few things are granted with the packages, it would be possible to
reuse the work of other people:
Yes, and while there are some good points here, this list in general
shows exactly the kind of provincialism that makes it
Keith M Wesolowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 12:54:49PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
If a few things are granted with the packages, it would be possible to
reuse the work of other people:
Yes, and while there are some good points here, this list in general
shows
On Jul 15, 2005, at 6:18 PM, James Dickens wrote:
I guess what we need now is to hear from others besides Joerg, and
at this point we aren't ready for technical discussion, we need to
build a community so we don't just have a community of 1 or two, we
need others opinions as well and
Can we all at least agree on two things right now.
#1 if we work together and commit changes/ports/updates/security fixes to
a single repository it will help out everyone.
Agreed.
#2 That we will work together to make #1 happen.
Agreed.
If we can just just agree on these two
On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 05:48:48PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Let's start talking about Sun make when it is opensource.
Fair enough.
One problem with GNU make is that it is not well maintained (it still has
unfixed bugs that have been reported and accepted as bugs in 1998).
Another
On 7/15/05, Keith M Wesolowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's fine to suggest that the makefiles should be fixed; I agree with
that worthy goal. In many cases, however, it's not worth the effort,
especially if the upstream maintainers won't accept the changes. In
these cases it doesn't really
Calling non-POSIX code illegal is clearly a distortion; it implies
that POSIX is a law, while it is really just a recommendation. Nobody
is required to write conforming applications.
This seems to be an utter nit. I knew exactly what Joerg meant when he
said illegal. Did anyone really
Dan Mick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Did anyone really suspect the police at their door if they violated
the recommendations of some specification?
Probably not, but Jörg's endless campaigns of I detected that
this program is broken because it does not implement POSIX and
they did not fix it for
Keith M Wesolowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 05:48:48PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
The implicit assumption here is that Sun make will be available as
open source sometime in the next year and possibly sooner still. If
you don't trust that assumption, and are
On Fri, 2005-07-15 at 13:37, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Sun could make Sun make more compatible to free make programs like GNU make
and smake.
Bug# 4866328 covers this.
--
Darren J Moffat
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
Dan Mick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then perhaps the complaint about the particular use of the term illegal is
misplaced.
No. Jörg's further derogatory wording (broken, defective etc.)
leaves no doubt about it. You can hardly claim that people have a
free choice whether to implement a
Gunnar Ritter wrote:
Dan Mick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then perhaps the complaint about the particular use of the term illegal is
misplaced.
No. Jörg's further derogatory wording (broken, defective etc.)
leaves no doubt about it. You can hardly claim that people have a
free choice whether
Gunnar Ritter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dan Mick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then perhaps the complaint about the particular use of the term illegal
is
misplaced.
No. Jörg's further derogatory wording (broken, defective etc.)
leaves no doubt about it. You can hardly claim that people
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Jasse Jansson wrote:
On Jul 15, 2005, at 6:18 PM, James Dickens wrote:
I guess what we need now is to hear from others besides Joerg, and
at this point we aren't ready for technical discussion, we need to
build a community so we don't just have a community of 1 or
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Eric Boutilier wrote:
...
...
(but I should add that Portage provides a tool for converting to the
Solaris package standard)...
Correction, it's pkgsrc that provides that tool.
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
My impression is that you are not interested in a fruitful discussion
but only listen to certain buzzwords and then start to pick on people.
Sigh.
Productive discussion focuses on the technology, not on the personalities.
This sort of statement could easily be (mis?)construed as a personal
Eric Boutilier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Assuming you mean the five I identified as planning (AFAICT)
redistributable distros:
Blastware
JDS/GNOME + KDE
Pkgsrc
Portage
SchilliX
... have anything in common. The answer to that question should be the
focus of this discussion.
The
Bart Smaalders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My impression is that you are not interested in a fruitful discussion
but only listen to certain buzzwords and then start to pick on people.
Sigh.
Productive discussion focuses on the technology, not on the personalities.
This sort of statement
On Jul 16, 2005, at 12:47 AM, Eric Boutilier wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Jasse Jansson wrote:
On Jul 15, 2005, at 6:18 PM, James Dickens wrote:
I guess what we need now is to hear from others besides Joerg, and
at this point we aren't ready for technical discussion, we need to
build a
On Jul 16, 2005, at 1:36 AM, Dennis Clarke wrote:
On 7/15/05, Jasse Jansson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When someone has figured out how to the initial 'make' stage,
then each distro-maker just has to fill in his part.
This requires a central repository for these makefiles,
might be at
Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any makefile that uses $ in an explicit rule is dubtlessly broken if it
claims to be portable and authors of free software usually claim to
write portable software.
_If_ they claim that. Otherwise they rely on documented behavior of
GNU make. This is
On 7/15/05, Jasse Jansson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 16, 2005, at 1:36 AM, Dennis Clarke wrote: On 7/15/05, Jasse Jansson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When someone has figured out how to the initial 'make' stage,
then each distro-maker just has to fill in his part. This requires a central
On 7/15/05, James Dickens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well this all seems to be a great plan we are still waiting for feed back
from the other distro's and individuals that might be interesting in working
on this project. As an individual if you got involved you could do step one
or two on a
On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 08:41:47PM -0500, James Dickens wrote:
Once a package reaches step 1, maintainers can then also apply updates,
upgrades, and security patches once for everyone, instead of everyone
scrambling to do the work.
Yes, and these are the things where unification would
On 7/14/05, ken mays [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- James Dickens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 7/14/05, ken mays [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I hope that this short review will help to
understand the problems of us OpenSolaris developers.
On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 12:29, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Smake warns about all illegal Makefile content. If you dowmload the latest
illegal according to which standard document and version ?
Please give a full reference.
--
Darren J Moffat
___
On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 13:21, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 12:29, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Smake warns about all illegal Makefile content. If you dowmload the latest
illegal according to which standard document and version ?
Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please give a full reference.
POSIX.
That isn't a full reference with version number, but it was enough
to get me started.
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/make.html
Well in contraty to GNU make, Sun make includes a
36 matches
Mail list logo
