Re: [PATCH] Re: 4.90RC1 doesn't compile on FreeBSD

[David Fifield <david () bamsoftware com>]

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 05:09:49PM -0500, Kris Katterjohn wrote:
> Daniel Roethlisberger wrote:
> > Fyodor <fyodor () insecure org> 2009-06-29:
> > > On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 02:59:17PM +0200, Daniel Roethlisberger wrote:
> > > > Fyodor <fyodor () insecure org> 2009-06-26:
> > > >
> > > > Patch attached.  With gmake installed, invoking `make` will
> > > > automatically invoke `gmake` on the same target(s).  Without
> > > > gmake installed, you get this:
> > > Thanks, this looks good.  Do you know if the make on FreeBSD, Solaris,
> > > OpenBSD, and NetBSD all accept this 'BSDmakefile' name and give it
> > > precedence over "Makefile"?
> >
> > FreeBSD and OpenBSD both have a make(1) which uses "BSDmakefile"
> > in precedence of "makefile" and "Makefile".  NetBSD and Solaris
> > don't.
> >
> > I don't think it is feasible to write a Makefile compatible with
> > all implementations of make(1), but maybe that's being too
> > pessimistic.
>
> GNU make checks for GNUmakefile before anything else, just like the BSD make
> in FreeBSD and OpenBSD apparently checks for BSDmakefile first.
>
> So:
>
> 1) Move our current Makefile to GNUmakefile
> 2) Create a new Makefile/makefile which simply calls gmake on the GNUmakefile

I like this idea. We just move Makefile.in to GNUmakefile.in and then
AC_OUTPUT(GNUmakefile) in configure.ac. Then move the current
BSDmakefile to Makefile. Can anyone think of a portability problem with
this?

David Fifield

_______________________________________________
Sent through the nmap-dev mailing list
http://cgi.insecure.org/mailman/listinfo/nmap-dev
Archived at http://SecLists.Org