At Wednesday 21 April 2010, Ralf Wildenhues <ralf.wildenh...@gmx.de> wrote: > > > [FROM ANOTHER MAIL] > > > Where can I get this heirloom-make? Is there a Debian package > > > for it? > > > > For the record, heirloom make is part of the Heirloom project > > <http://heirloom.sourceforge.net/>, > > Thanks. This is really really low priority. Basically nobody uses > that because they have to. Right. That's mostly used (and probably mostly intended) to ease "portability testing". And that's the only reason I use it for.
> > If you have a pointer to a similar > > make implementation without the heirloom-specific quirks, I'd be > > happy to use it instead. > > Yes: Solaris make. I'm guessing OpenSolaris version is derived > from that. So you're telling that there is a OpenSolaris make version which can run on Linux? Where can I download/obtain it? > > > I guess this could be worked around by adding explicit rules > > > (at least that's what SUSv3 recommends), maybe explicit > > > dependencies without rules suffice. I'm not sure we should > > > spend time on this old make, though. > > > > I think you're right. Maybe the best solution for the present > > problem would be to properly divide `silent5.test' into many, > > more specific tests (e.g. one for c++, one for fortran, one for > > lex etc.), and then skip the Lex/Yacc test(s) if a buggy make is > > detected. > > No, why? The test fails for a reason. The 'make' is not buggy > wrt. Posix, it works as documented. There is no reason to not let > the test fail. Sorry, I uncorrectly surmised from your mail that heirlooom-make was buggy in this respect. If it's not, then you're right that it's probably better to let test fail. > I've already noted earlier how to address the problem: help the > 'make' by producing explicit rules, either without or with > commands; you could try to find out whether it is sufficient to > not specify the rules. I'll try to take a look at this (maybe not soonish). Thanks, Stefano