On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 09:04:09 +0100, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Err, what are you trying to do? You have demonstrated here that
>> with the new make, you can concatenate words, the old make did not.
> [...]
>>> So it seems that it is not
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Err, what are you trying to do? You have demonstrated here
> that with the new make, you can concatenate words, the old make did
> not.
[...]
>> So it seems that it is not possible to make shell commands with line
>> continuation work with b
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 20:17:27 +0100, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think that the change was made without thoroughly thinking
> about it. But in fact it seems as if there are no instructions for
> transitioning Makefiles that rely
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 18:24:14 +0100, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>> Sorry that i didn't check this - I thought that you, Daniel, were
>> the make maintainer (thanks Adeodato). The rest of m
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 18:24:14 +0100, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Daniel Schepler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hopefully this will work on both versions, but again I don't have
>>> easy access to an old make to test it. There's also the
Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Daniel Schepler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Hopefully this will work on both versions, but again I don't have easy
>> access
>> to an old make to test it. There's also the suggestion elsewhere in the
>> thread to put the script in a make variable i
Daniel Schepler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hopefully this will work on both versions, but again I don't have easy access
> to an old make to test it. There's also the suggestion elsewhere in the
> thread to put the script in a make variable instead.
I really think that the maintainers of a c
Le Vendredi 23 Décembre 2005 09:11, Robert Luberda a écrit :
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2005, Daniel Schepler wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > Yes, a Makefile with
> > all:
> > echo 'foo'\
> > 'bar'
> >
> > will pass to the shell:
> > (old make) echo 'foo''bar'
> > (new make) echo 'foo'\
> > 'bar'
> >
> > And bo
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005, Daniel Schepler wrote:
Hi,
> Yes, a Makefile with
> all:
> echo 'foo'\
> 'bar'
>
> will pass to the shell:
> (old make) echo 'foo''bar'
> (new make) echo 'foo'\
> 'bar'
>
> And both will echo a single word.
Unfortunatelly that's not true: the sarge version of m
2005/12/20, Anthony Towns :
> So the old behaviour's POSIX compatible as long as the Makefile doesn't
> specify the .POSIX target.
The real question is, is there a way to allow the old
supported-for-years syntax. With large makefiles it uglyfies the file
somewhat. And interestingly, in the changel
Daniel Schepler wrote:
> One way to fix this is to rewrite the above as:
>
> perl -e 'my $lines=""; my $count=0; '\
> ' while (<>) { '\
> 'next if /^\d+$/; '\
> '$lines.=$_; $count++; '\
> ...
> ' print "$count\n$lines";' \
>
On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 02:19:36PM +0100, Daniel Schepler wrote:
> Le Mardi 20 Décembre 2005 14:10, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
> > On Dec 20, Daniel Schepler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > This is due to changes in make 3.80+3.81.b3-1 concerning how the lines
> > > are passed to the shell. Previousl
Quoting Daniel Schepler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > It breaks a widely used feature. Why should this change not be
> > considered a make bug?
>
> In make's NEWS.Debian.gz it says this change was for POSIX compliance. And
> since there's the simple way to rewrite these things that I outlined, I thi
Le Mardi 20 Décembre 2005 14:29, Frank Küster a écrit :
> Daniel Schepler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Le Mardi 20 Décembre 2005 14:10, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
> >> It breaks a widely used feature. Why should this change not be
> >> considered a make bug?
> >
> > In make's NEWS.Debian.gz it says t
Daniel Schepler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le Mardi 20 Décembre 2005 14:10, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
>>
>> It breaks a widely used feature. Why should this change not be
>> considered a make bug?
>
> In make's NEWS.Debian.gz it says this change was for POSIX compliance. And
> since there's the s
Le Mardi 20 Décembre 2005 14:10, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
> On Dec 20, Daniel Schepler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This is due to changes in make 3.80+3.81.b3-1 concerning how the lines
> > are passed to the shell. Previously, they would be concatenated; now
> > they are passed verbatim to the sh
On Dec 20, Daniel Schepler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is due to changes in make 3.80+3.81.b3-1 concerning how the lines are
> passed to the shell. Previously, they would be concatenated; now they are
> passed verbatim to the shell, backslashes and newlines included (minus the
> first ta
Just a heads up to all packagers out there that I've been seeing a number of
build failures similar to this one (randomly selected from gsfonts-x11):
perl -e 'my $lines=""; my $count=0; \
while (<>) { \
next if /^\d+$/; \
$lines.=$_; $count
18 matches
Mail list logo
