🚀 go-pugleaf

In <MIB.92Oct6135734@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:

>In article <STEINARB.92Oct4172851@hagtorn.idt.unit.no> steinarb@idt.unit.no (Steinar Bang) writes:

>Changing the Makefiles isn't too tough: took me about 15 minutes to
>update to MK78.

How did you do that? I'm not a make wizard and it took me more than 15 minutes
to figure out for instance that Makeconf wasn't a makefile on it's own...

>On the other hand, updating the tar file on
>alpha.gnu.ai.mit.edu takes significantly longer--which is why the tar
>is stoll MK68.  I will update it today.  I promise.  

Nice!

>The copy of Mach that you get with GNU will always be compilable on
>GNU.

That's good.

>It would be nice if that meant that we could use the CMU
>makefiles, but it isn't essential.

If it is easy to change the makefiles, then you are right.

>Modifying GNU make to have the CMU make features is not going to
>happen; ask Roland McGrath for the hairy details of why.

I would like to know why, but I don't know Roland's e-mail address. Maybe it's
of interest to more people?

>If CMU
>decides to use our Makefiles, that's great--but it isn't worth much.
>Our makefiles need to be conformant to the GNU Coding Standards, and
>CMU's will probably never be.

Is there a specification of those coding standards? If so, where can I get it?

>And now, I'm off to update the source on alpha.gnu.ai.mit.edu.  
Good.