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 Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 10:38:29AM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>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).
>
>  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.

...and that's why I suggested /etc/alternatives.

cgf


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