[bug #35323] When the environment is modified with export or undefine, $(shell ...) still inherits the original environment

URL: Summary: When the environment is modified with export or undefine, $(shell ...) still inherits the original environment Project: make Submitted by: phantal Submitted on: Tue 17 Jan 2012 09:00:02

Re: Cleanup of makefiles 'n stuff

On 01/17/2012 09:04 PM, Sebastian Pipping wrote: > > Git please. It's fast, used by important GNU projects [1] ... [SNIP] > > [1] http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/coreutils.git > And FTR also: http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/libtool.git http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/autoconf.git http:/

Re: Cleanup of makefiles 'n stuff

On 01/17/2012 06:28 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> For sure once I actually take the plunge and move to a "real" source >> code control system [...] > > May I suggest bzr? It is a GNU project and is used by Emacs, wget, > and a few others on Savannah. Git please. It's fast, used by important GNU p

Re: Cleanup of makefiles 'n stuff

>> In the presence of a version control system, even one as basic as CVS, >> deletion isn't fundamentally worse than leaving them to bit-rot out of >> [sight] - they can always be recovered from the version-control system > > Not for people who only get the release tarballs. Good point - didn't th

Re: Cleanup of makefiles 'n stuff

> From: Edward Welbourne > Cc: psm...@gnu.org, make-...@gnu.org, bug-make@gnu.org > Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 17:08:02 +0100 > > > How about moving them to a subdirectory, where they could bit-rot out > > of sight? > > In the presence of a version control system, even one as basic as CVS, > deletio

Re: Cleanup of makefiles 'n stuff

>> The contents of these files don't seem so different to me that they >> couldn't be consolidated, perhaps with some command-line overrides >> or similar. Or, maybe some of them are just not needed; do we >> really have to be able to build with nmake and smake? > > How about moving them to a subd