This is the mail archive of the cygwin-apps mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

RE: Package naming dilemma


On 17 August 2006 21:30, Christopher Faylor wrote:

> I guess this is a YMMV situation.  It seems to me that this is intended as
> a replacement for GNU make.
> 
>     remake is a patched and modernized version of GNU make utility that
>     adds improved error reporting, the ability to trace execution in a
>     comprehensible way, and a debugger.  The debugger lets you set
>     breakpoints on targets, show and set variables in expanded or
>     unexpanded form, inspect target descriptions, see the target call
>     stack, and even execute arbitrary GNU make fragments (e.g.  add a
>     dependency to an existing target).
> 
> cgf


  Yes, it's basically a drop in replacement.  Well, it basically IS make.  The
extra features aren't on by default.  The only difference in normal operation
is more verbose error output - that could just conceivably throw off some
automated build systems, but other than that, it's identical.  Which is why I
thought having the two side by side, one with support for DOS paths and one
without, might make people happy.  Most people would want only one or the
other.  All the make-dos-path complainers would simply link /bin/make to
/bin/remake and be happy[*].

  BTW I would also not want to change the name from upstream.  It is *so* much
the twin/counterpart of make that the name is entirely suitable.


    cheers,
      DaveK

* -  OK, maybe expecting them to be happy with the onerous task of having to
make a link in their bin dirs is too much.
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]