On Fri, 7 Dec 2001, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> Either way, just yesterday I was commenting to Dan that we could forego one
> more external dependency by doing dependencies "a la" make, rather than
> "via". (The idea being that an initial bootstrap is rather straightforward.
> Then again, how weighty is make as a dependency?)
Depends what make.
GNU make can do a lot of things that other makes can't. For example, I
think you can write a rule for our lovely .ops -> _ops.c transform in it.
(But don't hold me to that, please!)
On the other end of the spectrum, Microsoft nmake can't even understand ;
within a commandline. On win9x, IIRC, it has very strange quoting
conventions.
If we can do without make without making things more complicated, I'm all
for it.
(OTOH, I'm not all for remaking anything when any file changes, which
would be the easiest way of doing it.)
-=- James Mastros
--
"In the case of alchemy v chemistry the chemists know whether it will
probably go bang before they try it (and the chemical engineers still duck
anyway)." -=- Alan Cox
