autoconf
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [cfarm-users] Missing "make" on gcc210 or gcc211.fsffrance.org / or


From: Paul Eggert
Subject: Re: [cfarm-users] Missing "make" on gcc210 or gcc211.fsffrance.org / or wrong autoconf - any idea?
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2022 09:45:44 -0700
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.3.3

On 2022-10-30 02:22, Jaroslav Fojtik via cfarm-users wrote:
I am asking, is this standard on solaris not to have installed make but gmake 
instead?


No, on traditional Solaris 10, traditional 'make' is /usr/ccs/bin/make (part of the SUNWsprot package) or /usr/xpg4/bin/make (part of the SUNWxcu4t package). They are identical executables. Although neither is required as part of operating system core, both are routinely installed on any platform intended for software development.

GNU make is /usr/sfw/bin/gmake (part of the SUNWgmake package). This is not routinely installed.

More-recent Solaris derivatives (I'm thinking of illuminos) do things differently, but still, the idea seems to be that 'make' is traditional, 'gmake' is GNU make.

I hoped that user runs autoconf and autoconf will decide whether to execute "make" or "gmake" or whatever else.

Autoconf looks only for 'make', and historically this has worked well on Solaris because most packages do not assume GNU Make. If you want to configure with 'gmake' on Solaris, you can use './configure MAKE=gmake'.

It might be nice for someone to contribute changes to Autoconf, for packages that want to assume GNU Make semantics. Presumably this would be a new macro. I'll cc this to autoconf@gnu.org.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]