Re: make: should -j affect cwd?

[Mouse <mouse%Rodents-Montreal.ORG@localhost>]

[jklowden]
> Everyone I talk to says the BSD make code is the ugliest thing not
> walking on two feet.

I'm not sure I'd go that far, but it's certainly in the running.

> Because fools rush in where angels fear to tread, let me ask, Why not
> start from scratch?   I know: compatibility.

Exactly.  As asau wrote in reply,

[asau]
> There's a lot of code that relies on make as it is.

So, it sounds to me as though a first step would be to document exactly
what we have.  Warts and all.  Then maybe we can decide what fraction
of it any replacement must implement to be considered, what fraction
should be fixed, and what fraction might be nice to duplicate if
convenient but is sacrificable.

Of course, our current make is buggy - it's far too large to be
bug-free - so what we really should be documenting, and then
considering, is what we think we have.

_Then_ maybe it's sane to consider an ab initio replacement.  Without
either compatability (damn near bug-for-bug compatability) with an
existing make, or an organization the size of the FSF's fanbase pushing
it, it's not really going anywhere.

[jklowden]
> I'm interested to hear what others think.  make might be my favorite
> utility.  ISTM it's a shame to let it ossify into decreptitude when
> we have the knowledge and talent to revitalize it.

We have the talent.  We have the knowledge, but it exists in an
un-codified distributed form which is difficult to do anything useful
with.  That's why I think codifying that knowledge in a single place is
a good - indeed, all but essential - first step.

/~\ The ASCII                             Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML                mouse%rodents-montreal.org@localhost
/ \ Email!           7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B