🚀 go-pugleaf

>>>>> gip200@sci.kun.nl (gip2 course) writes:

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

>> One of the files in the docs/notes directory of mach.cs.cmu.edu
>> mentions that the Mach people at CMU are working on moving the
>> Makefiles over to a format usable by a freely available Make (The OSF
>> ODE Make based on the BSD-Reno Make from the). This work has been put
>> on low priority pending a favorable settlement of the BNR-2 lawsuit.

> Can't they just take GNU make and modify that?

They could, I guess, but it is not a high priority task for them (if
you're talking about CMU).

>> It also has to be a problem for the FSF. They would seem to
>> need an OS kernel that can be configured and compiled without a BSD
>> license.

> What about BSDSS and POE?

Neither is any use without the microkernel itself. These are server
processes that run on top of the microkernel. I believe that BSDSS is
converted to build with the ODE make, but since I haven't read any
info to the contrary, I believe that POE needs the ordinary CMU
environment to compile.

>>  1. Change GNU Make to support the same facilities as CMU Make

> That is probably the best solution at this moment. It is independent
> of what CMU does. If they change their makefiles, we can switch to
> GNU make, pmake, or whatever they use. If they don't, then that's
> ok too.

I think you're right. The reason I leaned to the second solution is
that I figured the GNU Make maintainer(s) would be unwilling to
clutter the GNU Make with facilities just to be able to compile a
single program (even one as important as the Mach microkernel).

>>  2. Do the changes necessary to the CMU Makefiles to make them work
>>     with the ODE Make (or the GNU Make for that matter), and nicely
>>     ask CMU to start using these Makefiles in their distribution.

> But that leaves you at the 'mercy' of CMU. It might be that they are
> not willing to change and that means that a lot of work is lost...

I agree.

- Steinar