Re: New virtual packages suggestion (make)

[kai@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen)]

srivasta@pilgrim.umass.edu (Manoj Srivastava)  wrote on 04.08.96 in <[🔎] gvxivazbljk.fsf@diamond.pilgrim.umass.edu>:

> 	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:

I have one, though.

> 	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.

The problem with this approach is that it breaks everything that assumes  
that make is the GNU make - for instance, the kernel. And probably several  
debian.rules files.

MfG Kai