At 08:06 AM 12/8/2001 -0500, James Mastros wrote:
>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.
This has nothing to do with Make. It's a shell thing. The line gets sent
out mostly verba
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 we
On Fri, 7 Dec 2001, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2001, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
>
> > On Friday 07 December 2001 08:43 am, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> > > Funny you should mention that, because Perl's Configure does things in
> > > order determined by 'Dependency-ish rules, a la make'. Confi
On Fri, 7 Dec 2001, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> On Friday 07 December 2001 09:18 am, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> > The key idea is that the pumpkin holder runs 'make' ONCE to determine the
> > dependencies and record the proper order to run the units in a file.
> > End-users don't have to redetermine
On Friday 07 December 2001 09:23 am, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> {sigh}
{double sigh}
>
> Perl has TMTOWTDI. *I* get stuck with ATWIRTWISTOR. (At Least When I
> Reinvent The Wheel, It Still Turns Out Round.)
Dave Mitchell, I'm not.
s/AT/AL/;
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Friday 07 December 2001 09:18 am, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> > Except, of course, for being one big honking file.
>
> That's a mere implementation detail :-). (Though one that's admittedly
> quite intimidating!) It isn't one big file until the very very end step.
> There's no reason it couldn't
On Fri, 7 Dec 2001, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> On Friday 07 December 2001 08:43 am, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> > Funny you should mention that, because Perl's Configure does things in
> > order determined by 'Dependency-ish rules, a la make'. Configure is
> > indeed built in just the way you suggest
On Friday 07 December 2001 08:43 am, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> Funny you should mention that, because Perl's Configure does things in
> order determined by 'Dependency-ish rules, a la make'. Configure is
> indeed built in just the way you suggest.
Except, of course, for being one big honking file.
On Fri, 7 Dec 2001, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> On Friday 07 December 2001 03:32 am, Brent Dax wrote:
> > I have no idea how many times this has been suggested. :^)
> Dependency-ish rules, a la make. Maybe even tied into the actual build
> itself. I don't think getting them to run in the right
On Friday 07 December 2001 03:32 am, Brent Dax wrote:
> I have no idea how many times this has been suggested. :^)
Well, then one more is a relatively small burden to bear. ;-)
>
> Seriously, the only problem I can see with it is that the modules will
> have to be run in a specific order. If
Bryan C. Warnock:
# Is there any reason why we couldn't break up configure (when
# it comes into
# being) into chunks?
#
# The last 5.7.2 grab I have puts the current one at 17.5 Klines. It's
# weighty, a beast to maintain, and a beast to keep running
# through (should
# something break halfway.)
Brent & Co.,
Is there any reason why we couldn't break up configure (when it comes into
being) into chunks?
The last 5.7.2 grab I have puts the current one at 17.5 Klines. It's
weighty, a beast to maintain, and a beast to keep running through (should
something break halfway.)
Something st
12 matches
Mail list logo
