--2fHTh5uZTiUOsy+g
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Lubomir Sedlacik <salo@Xtrmntr.org> wrote:
> hi,
>=20
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 01:52:10PM -0400, Jan Schaumann wrote:

[PR 22509]
=20
> > Actually, yes.  I just closed that PR.  JFTR: Using tools.mk didn't
> > seem suitable to me, as we do not want to artificially depend on GNU
> > make.
>=20
> you seem to misread the comment.  i was suggesting to link
> ${MAKE_PROGRAM}, not GNU make.  that is, provide an appropriate "make"
> for the package in the $PATH.  it doesn't matter whether is it GNU make
> or bmake, the dependency is handled way before we get to this point.
> this would solve all such issues without dozens of patches.

I see.  The problem (AFAICT after a brief look at tools.mk) is that
MAKE_PROGRAM and MAKE do not contain the full path, but just the name of
the exectuable.  We'd have to either provide a full path for MAKE, or
otherwise treat it in a special way to make this work.

But it does seem to me that we actually do want to make sure that the
invoked 'make' is always in fact what we think it is, and this approach
is probably a way to achieve this.

-Jan

P.S.: Taken to tech-pkg@

--=20
I'm not even supposed to be here today!

--2fHTh5uZTiUOsy+g
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQE/SnNBfFtkr68iakwRAmSLAJ49bGbVltd/FpDHJjcTdzZkwRddnwCcCdGq
y4VJcut82ftS367tzMjJapE=
=hsU0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--2fHTh5uZTiUOsy+g--