Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!purdue!bu-cs!bloom-beacon!apple!earlw
From: earlw@Apple.COM (Earl Wallace)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Bugs in the AT&T Toolchest program 'nmake'
Message-ID: <1766@internal.Apple.COM>
Date: 10 May 89 17:55:49 GMT
References: <1640@internal.Apple.COM> <464@tijc02.UUCP>
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA
Lines: 24

In article <464@tijc02.UUCP> cgh018@tijc02.UUCP (Calvin Hayden) writes:
>...
>Well, here goes.  First, we are using nmake now, and I have talked with 
>Mark Forman (At&t toolchest admin) about the bugs (features :->) associated
>with nmake.  I've been told that At&t has made major changes to nmake
>internally, and that they are not going to release this to Mark, despite 
>all of his efforts -- this conversation took place around Feburary, so dont
>hold your breath for another update to come from the toolchest.
>...

I have heard from several sources that nmake won't be updated via the ToolChest
and this has me concerned about switching to it.  I don't want to move to software
that may *never* be updated.  If AT&T has made major changes to nmake, uses it
internally, and won't release it to the ToolChest, does this mean we'll see it in
SVR5.5 as part of that release? (The theory being that if you want the improved
nmake, you will have to buy 5.5)

This brings up another point:  With some many different 'makes' out there now
(imake, gmake, nmake, etc.), is there one that really outshines the rest?

nmake looks neat because you can change the global rules with ease and tailor
them to your environment.  Is UNIX software development goinf to rely on
make programs forever?  What's down the road?  "Database-Driven Software
Maintenance" I hope...