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