Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcsun!ukc!axion!crunchie!crouch From: crouch@crunchie.axion.bt.co.uk (Chris Rouch) Newsgroups: comp.windows.x Subject: Re: R5 Wish List (Imake to the bitbucket) Message-ID: <1990Jul18.124119.1777@axion.bt.co.uk> Date: 18 Jul 90 12:41:19 GMT References: <2767@uakari.primate.wisc.edu> Sender: news@axion.bt.co.uk Reply-To: CRouch@axion.bt.co.uk Organization: British Telecom Research Labs Lines: 32 In article <2767@uakari.primate.wisc.edu>, bin@primate.wisc.edu (Brain in Neutral) writes: |> From article , by montnaro@milkweed.crd.ge.com (Skip Montanaro): |> > |> > 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. |> |> Ahh .... no. Please don't. Imake is wonderful. It would, though, |> be nice if there were more documentation about how to overcome some |> of the more common errors likely to crop up during the configuration |> process (e.g., your Makefile gets hosed). Or more comments in the |> configuration files. Sometimes they're mighty cryptic. |> |> Or is it just me? I really like imake a lot, but found I have to invest |> quite a bit of time trying to understand it before I was able to take |> it and use it for my own projects. Is this unusual? |> I agree. It takes a fair bit of effort to sus imake out, but once done I found it relatively simple to create new Imakefiles for my own stuff. I would like to see more *well commented* examples, to take some of the trial and error out. But improve it, don't scrap it. Chris ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Rouch crouch@axion.bt.co.uk RT3131, BTRL, Martlesham Heath, Ipswich, England. +44 473 646093 We came, we saw, we lost on penalties.