Re: New virtual packages suggestion (make)

[Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@pilgrim.umass.edu>]

Hi,

	I have no _major_ objections to changing the name of the make
 package to gmake, and have it provide make as a virtual package (and
 pmake doing the same).  It should be noted, though, that:
	a) We would be changing the name of the upstream package (this
	   should not be undertaken lightly)
	b) We would have to use alternatives to actually provide a
	   make on the system
	c) Does pmake offer similar facilities and semantics as a
	   generic ``make'' package?
 I guss the question I have is whether this change buys us enough. If
 it does, I have no objections to changing the name.

	manoj
-- 
 "It follows that any commander in chief who undertakes to carry out a
 plan which he considers defective is at fault; he must put forth his
 reasons, insist of the plan being changed, and finally tender his
 resignation rather than be the instrument of his army's downfall."
 Napoleon, "Military Maxims and Thought"
Manoj Srivastava               Systems Research Programmer, Project Pilgrim,
Phone: (413) 545-3918               A143B Lederle Graduate Research Center,
Fax:   (413) 545-3203         University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003
<srivasta@pilgrim.umass.edu> <URL:http://www.pilgrim.umass.edu/%7Esrivasta/>