On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 09:39:31AM +0100 I heard the voice of
Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav, and lo! it spake thus:
> rob spellberg writes:
> > Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav wrote:
> > > gmake is inferior in most ways that matter.

> > why?

> Most noticeably, the lack of .for / .endfor.

I've always found intense irritation at its lack of ability to apply more
than one transformation to a variable, necessitating a whole bunch of
intermediate variables. It doesn't use '.'s on various commands like
'include'. It's irritatingly different in the names of some of the
special variables...

I have a few projects going where I've through sheer cussedness refused
to stop using bmake, but need the impaired folks using Linux systems to
be able to build too, so I've ended up writing scripts to either convert
the Makefile into a GNUmakefile, or scripts to take a proto-Makefile and
convert it to both formats. PITA.

(those aren't, before anybody asks, general scripts; they only cover the
constructs I used)

Matthew Fuller (MF4839) | fullermd@over-yonder.net
Systems/Network Administrator | http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/

"The only reason I'm burning my candle at both ends, is because I
haven't figured out how to light the middle yet"
freebsd-chat@freebsd.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-chat-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"