Subject: Re: New virtual packages suggestion (make)

From: Warwick HARVEY <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 1996 17:53:52 +1000

"Brian C. White" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > > I propose to add the following virtual packages:
> > >
> > >   - gnu-make    useful for packages like kernel-package and my new
> > >                 compress-package (not yet released) that *need* a GNU make
> > >                 to be used.
> > 
> > Do we have (or expect to have) more than one package that provides "make"?
> > Otherwise, I don't see the use.
> 
> Actually, changing the name of the make package to "gnumake" might not
> be too bad of an idea.  There are several versions of make around.  While
> I see little reason for other versions of make, Debian has several
> instances of redundant packages.  I mean, why bother with any other
> editors when "emacs" is available?  <runs away laughing before he gets
> lynched>
> 
> You could make a case for virtual package "make", instead.

I like this idea.  It seems to me that having GNU Make's package name being
"gmake", and having it provide "make" (with pmake doing the same), is the
better way to do it.  Manoj, as GNU Make maintainer, do you have anything to
say on the issue?

				Warwick

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Warwick Harvey                                    email: [email-masked]
Department of Computer Science                        phone: +61-3-9287-9171
University of Melbourne                                 fax: +61-3-9348-1184
Parkville, Victoria, AUSTRALIA 3052     web: http://www.cs.mu.OZ.AU/~warwick

---

From: Manoj Srivastava <[email-masked]>
Date: 04 Aug 1996 04:28:31 -0400

Hi,

	I have no _major_ objections to changing the name of the make
 package to gmake, and have it provide make as a virtual package (and
 pmake doing the same).  It should be noted, though, that:
	a) We would be changing the name of the upstream package (this
	   should not be undertaken lightly)
	b) We would have to use alternatives to actually provide a
	   make on the system
	c) Does pmake offer similar facilities and semantics as a
	   generic ``make'' package?
 I guss the question I have is whether this change buys us enough. If
 it does, I have no objections to changing the name.

	manoj
-- 
 "It follows that any commander in chief who undertakes to carry out a
 plan which he considers defective is at fault; he must put forth his
 reasons, insist of the plan being changed, and finally tender his
 resignation rather than be the instrument of his army's downfall."
 Napoleon, "Military Maxims and Thought"
Manoj Srivastava               Systems Research Programmer, Project Pilgrim,
Phone: (413) 545-3918               A143B Lederle Graduate Research Center,
Fax:   (413) 545-3203         University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003
<[email-masked]> <URL:http://www.pilgrim.umass.edu/%7Esrivasta/>

---

From: [email-masked] (Kai Henningsen)
Date: 04 Aug 1996 13:52:00 +0200

>  pmake doing the same).  It should be noted, though, that:

I have one, though.

>  it does, I have no objections to changing the name.

The problem with this approach is that it breaks everything that assumes  
that make is the GNU make - for instance, the kernel. And probably several  
debian.rules files.

MfG Kai

---

From: Mr Stuart Lamble <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 14:27:09 +1000 (EST)

> that make is the GNU make - for instance, the kernel. And probably several  

It would probably be a fair assumption to say that make, under Linux, is
GNU make: the average user would have this installed. I very much doubt
that anybody, except very serious developers, would have any other version
of make installed.

I don't believe that this sort of a change is necessary.

-- 
Windows is not the answer. Windows is the question. Linux is the answer.
http://sunsite.unc.edu/mdw/ for all your PC software requirements. ;-)