On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 01:48:49PM -0400, Johnny C. Lam wrote:
> David Brownlee <abs@netbsd.org> writes:
> > > >
> > > > Actually, I think it should actually look like:
> > > >
> > > > 	CONFIGURE_ENV+=		MAKE="${MAKE_PROGRAM}"
> > > >
> > > > For some packages that _require_ gmake, the configure script fails to
> > > > detect it because it just invokes "make" and doesn't find GNU make,
> > > > much like you're describing above.  I believe this solves your problem
> > > > as well, since ${MAKE_PROGRAM} is set to bmake on Linux, right?
> > >
> > > I mean for the above line to be added to bsd.pkg.mk, not just to the
> > > apache Makefile.
> > 
> > 	If its in bsd.pkg.mk then presumably it could be conditional
> > 	on USE_GMAKE?
> 
> No, we should need this all the time.  If USE_GMAKE is not defined,
> then MAKE_PROGRAM is correctly set to "make" or
> "/usr/local/bsd/bin/bmake" on zoularis platforms.  If it _is_ defined,
> then MAKE_PROGRAM is set to "gmake".

Actually, to be pedantic, MAKE_PROGRAM is set to ${GMAKE}, which
defaults to "gmake".  There are some who insist on non-standard names
for GNU make.

> In either case, GNU configure
> scripts should know which make program will be invoked during the
> configure process, and unconditionally passing MAKE="${MAKE_PROGRAM}"
> accomplishes this.  There are also some stupid packages out there that
> directly substitute @MAKE@ in their Makefile.in files, so as a side
> effect, we would require fewer patches to fix this kind of stupidity.

This sounds like a very good idea to me.

Regards,
Alistair