Robert Clausecker <fuz%fuz.su@localhost> writes: > "include file" as in "makefile fragment included through a include or > similar directive." For example, our distribution comes without a bunch > of symlinks needed to build it (as some platforms do not support symlinks), > so the makefile has content like this to generate the symbolic links if > needed: Thanks; I did not parse "include file" that way. I see the point now. >> From the pkgsrc viewpoint, using gmake as a build tool is not a big >> deal. Many things do, so it gets built anyway on most systems. I feel >> that avoiding a gmake tool depends for schilytools is not a tremendous >> gain, compared to the effort, possible architectural issues, and future >> maintenance involved in adding a feature (that I am pretty sure is not >> mandated by POSIX) into bmake. > > This is not specifically about pkgsrc, but rather about making it easier > to build schilytools in general. We ship a "bootstrap smake" that can > be used to build the project if not sufficiently powerful make is > present, but it would be much nicer if that was not needed on the many > platforms that use bmake. I can see your point, but from the viewpoint of "how to deal with building random software X on NetBSD", we are very used to "first, make sure you have gmake". Perhaps someone who might actually contemplate adding a feature to bmake will comment now that this is more understandable.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature