On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 10:38:29AM +0100, Dave Korn wrote: >On 17 August 2006 21:30, Christopher Faylor wrote: > >> I guess this is a YMMV situation. It seems to me that this is intended as >> a replacement for GNU make. >> >> remake is a patched and modernized version of GNU make utility that >> adds improved error reporting, the ability to trace execution in a >> comprehensible way, and a debugger. The debugger lets you set >> breakpoints on targets, show and set variables in expanded or >> unexpanded form, inspect target descriptions, see the target call >> stack, and even execute arbitrary GNU make fragments (e.g. add a >> dependency to an existing target). > > Yes, it's basically a drop in replacement. Well, it basically IS make. The >extra features aren't on by default. The only difference in normal operation >is more verbose error output - that could just conceivably throw off some >automated build systems, but other than that, it's identical. Which is why I >thought having the two side by side, one with support for DOS paths and one >without, might make people happy. Most people would want only one or the >other. All the make-dos-path complainers would simply link /bin/make to >/bin/remake and be happy[*]. > > BTW I would also not want to change the name from upstream. It is *so* much >the twin/counterpart of make that the name is entirely suitable.
...and that's why I suggested /etc/alternatives. cgf