Re: Package which uses jam (instead make)
On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 01:15:29PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > > It is documented to be a Makefile. That _is_ the
> > > interface definition.
> >
> > Actually, we don't know that. The original documentation did not explicitely
> > say that all rules files absolutely need to be makefiles, but we warped it
> > to mean that later.
>
> Oh, please. It may not have been explicitly documented, but it was sure
> as hell intended to be a Makefile. The "warpage" merely documented the
> existing reality.
I beg to differ. It points out it's a makefile and uses the "target"
terminology (IIRC that's not new?). However, I don't see any notion of
taking make-specific features other than the footnote on hinting, and on the
other hand it avoids running make explicitely and it exclusively uses only
one argument to the script. To make it a makefile is the obvious choice, the
recommended choice, but there's nothing to proscribe using something else.
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
Reply to: