Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!amdcad!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!ulysses!hector!ekrell
From: ekrell@hector.UUCP (Eduardo Krell)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Ever heard of mk? (was Re: Thoughts about "make")
Message-ID: <3141@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com>
Date: Sun, 1-Nov-87 14:34:58 EST
Article-I.D.: ulysses.3141
Posted: Sun Nov  1 14:34:58 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 5-Nov-87 20:54:20 EST
References: <1700@botter.cs.vu.nl> <8859@utzoo.UUCP>
Sender: daemon@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com
Reply-To: ekrell@hector (Eduardo Krell)
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill
Lines: 24

In article <8859@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:

>I'm not familiar enough with nmake to answer in detail, but as I understand
>it, nmake knows a lot about C.  What happens if you try to use a seriously
>different set of conventions for file naming etc.?

Actually, there are two distinct objects here: nmake itself and the nmake
default rules, which are outside of nmake and are really a global makefile
with all the rules about C, YACC, LEX, cc, etc.

I don't believe nmake itself knows "a lot about C" more than old make does.
It knows something about Unix and archives, but all the rules about generating
.o files from .c or .s files, and so forth come from the nmake rules file,
which can be changed by a system administrator or bypassed by the user.

I am using right now 2 quite different rules files, which reflect their
author's views on how to compile files. The final behavior is different,
but they're both using the same nmake program.

Thus, it's not nmake you're complaining about, but the default rules.
    
    Eduardo Krell                   AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill

    {ihnp4,seismo,ucbvax}!ulysses!ekrell