Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!dimacs.rutgers.edu!mips!smsc.sony.com!dce From: dce@smsc.sony.com (David Elliott) Newsgroups: comp.windows.x Subject: Re: R5 Wish List (Imake to the bitbucket) Message-ID: <1990Jul18.152058.4404@smsc.sony.com> Date: 18 Jul 90 15:20:58 GMT References: Sender: news@smsc.sony.com (Usenet News System) Reply-To: dce@smsc.sony.com (David Elliott) Organization: Sony Microsystems, San Jose, CA Lines: 34 In article , montnaro@milkweed.crd.ge.com (Skip Montanaro) writes: |> |> How about getting rid of Imake and using GNU make instead for R5? I've never |> gotten Imake to work properly, and always wind up translating Imakefiles |> into GNUmakefiles. Maybe you should describe the problems so that we can work to fix them. I have used imake with various versions of System V and BSD imake without any problems. The few times I have used it with GNU make, I had problems and ended up going back to System V make, so as far as I can see, the problem isn't with imake. The biggest problem with imake seems to be that people don't take the time to learn it. It's actually very well-designed and works great when people use it. In the case of X, the folks at MIT have done a good job of keeping the X Imakefiles up to date, so there are lots of reasonable examples to look at. The only real objection I can see with going with GNU make is that it's not as freely-distributable as X is (did I get it right this time, Joe? ;-). Also, will GNU make handle the same problems as imake does? (The person that put gnu-make on our system doesn't believe in making man pages available #$@%!) I like being able to take a program from the net and build it on both BSD (without the X source tree) and System V.4 (with the X source tree) and have things build first time. ...David Elliott ...dce@smsc.sony.com | ...!{uunet,mips}!sonyusa!dce ...(408)944-4073 ..."Damn! I'm running out of integers!"