On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 05:33:02PM -0500, Francois Colbert wrote:
>Well... setting MAKE_MODE to "win32" also makes the process stop with
>the same error message, without even reading the Makefile. It seems
>that only "unix" is accepted, and there's already a "--unix" parameter
>that does the same
Well... setting MAKE_MODE to "win32" also makes the process stop with
the same error message, without even reading the Makefile. It seems
that only "unix" is accepted, and there's already a "--unix" parameter
that does the same thing.
I'm talking about an already existing Makefile, here. O
On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 06:17:51PM -0800, Brian Dessent wrote:
>Francois Colbert wrote:
>
>> I think that a simple warning message (or no message at all?) and
>> *normal* continuation of the process (ie: no abort) would be sufficient
>> since "make" doesn't seem to be using this variable anymore.
Francois Colbert wrote:
> I think that a simple warning message (or no message at all?) and
> *normal* continuation of the process (ie: no abort) would be sufficient
> since "make" doesn't seem to be using this variable anymore. Its only
I think the idea is that if you have a Makefile that expec
Hi.
When "make" (3.81) is invoked in a shell where the MAKE_MODE environment
variable is set, an error message is printed, saying that the support
for MAKE_MODE has been dropped, and the process *stops*.
In my opinion, not supporting MAKE_MODE is fine, but aborting is not.
This is very uncon
5 matches
Mail list logo
