This is a discussion on Re: which make in freebsd? - FreeBSD ; Timothy Beyer wrote: > Hi, I was curious, which of the dozens of make programs does FreeBSD use? Internally, just "make" (BSD make). In X11, imake, xmkmf, etc.. In ports, it varies; sometimes make, sometimes GNU make, etc.. > So ...
Timothy Beyer wrote:
> Hi, I was curious, which of the dozens of make programs does FreeBSD use?
Internally, just "make" (BSD make). In X11, imake, xmkmf, etc..
In ports, it varies; sometimes make, sometimes GNU make, etc..
> So far I'm guessing that its imake or pmake, but is it something else? Is there
> really a generic bsd 'make' program?
> On another note, what make do you (as in everyone on the list) prefer, and
BSD make. You can .include rules, so your Makefile's end up being
only a few lines, instead of being large.
> I've heard lots of people complain that XFree doesn't use gmake, but I just
> don't see whats wrong with imake... Of course, all the people who were
> complaining were Linux users, but this made me curious if there are really
> some distinguishing features of the gmake that set it above the rest... Or
> were they just biased?
They're not just biased; mostly, they are idiots. 8-). The reason
for this is that imake encapsulates the dependencies properly, and
the code is portable, whereas GNU make/automake/configure/etc. put
the onus on the software.
Over time, programs that use these tools to build become less and
less portable. So using these programs is a form of Linux advocacy.
For a while, Amancio Hasty "rode herd" on several projects that kept
becoming non-portable to FreeBSD because of Linux advocacates adding
code that would not compile on any platform but Linux.
The imake program uses platform feature tests, and then compiles the
code with feature declaration macrois in scope, so the code remains
firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "email@example.com"