Re: problem with Makefile

On Sun, 7 May 2000, David A. Gatwood wrote:

On Mon, 8 May 2000, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:

quoted

On Mon, May 08, 2000 at 01:26:05PM +0800, Rolf Liu wrote:

quoted

current work
is to translate the Makefile of linux-ppc into a standard one, such as one
for windows-based
Makefile,which is meaningful to other standard "make" utilities,including

There is a standard make.  It's POSIX, I believe.  The linux makefile
is pretty close to it.  Why on earth would you want to use Microsoft or
Borland tools (which are nmake, not make, IIRC) to build a kernel?

As a fun exercise?

Seriously, though, what would be good would be to modify the makefile to
eliminate all gnu extensions, i.e. converting it into a pure lowest-
common-denominator makefile (yes, it's probably POSIX).  That would allow
it to be built under other OSes, including Windoze, but also *BSD, Darwin,
MacOS X, etc.  That having been said, it's a pain in the backside to do
that sort of thing, so I wish you lots of luck.  ;-)

WHY?!?

I once read in a guide about writing makefiles (can dig up the reference if you
want):

    Don't try to write portable Makefiles, use a portable make (i.e. GNU make)

And I agree with this...

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

						Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- Linux/{m68k~Amiga,PPC~CHRP} -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
							    -- Linus Torvalds


** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/