Subject: Re: potential conflict between tools & sparc `binstall'
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: None <email@example.com>
Date: 10/18/2001 23:07:15
firstname.lastname@example.org ("Todd Vierling") writes:
> I used "bmake" and "binstall" to differentiate these very important tools
> from their counterparts on many platforms. I didn't think about that
> particular name conflict.
FWIW (and it's not worth very much), personally i prefer the name
at least in my experience, when people think 'bmake' they think 'BSD
make,' i.e., anything that happens to be based on the common
functionality set provided by the net/2 make.
Since that includes BSD/OS make, FreeBSD make, etc., I prefer the 'nb'
prefix to distinguish the NetBSD-specific nature.
FYI, all of this predates the whole recent push to support sane
cross-compilation, but maybe some of it's still instructive:
In the cross-build toolchains that I provide to people (which provide
both the ability to compile the most of the userland 'src' tree plus
kernels, plus random userland programs not in the src tree), I
nbmake (which includes a copy of the mk templates)
mips-netbsd-nbmkdep (since it encodes CPP w/ tools prefix)
(plus flex, etc.) I also provide wrappers around nbmake which supply
variables like those below...
it's nice to be able to write random software, say, foo.c, and be able
to just say mips-netbsd-nbmake-bar foo, and produce a working
export AR AS AWK CC CPP CXX INSTALL LD LEX LORDER MACHINE MACHINE_ARCH MKDEP
export MTREE NM OBJCOPY OBJDUMP RPCGEN RANLIB SIZE STRIP TSORT YACC
exec nbmake "$@"