On 07/13/06 08:06:19AM -0700, Erast Benson wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 12:59 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Erast Benson writes ("Re: cdrtools"):
> > > Joerg clearly stands that:
> > >
> > > 1) Makefiles != scripts or at least it is unclear whether Makefiles may
> > > be called "scripts":
> > >
> > > """ GPL §3 requires the "scripts for compilation" to be provided but
> > > as a first note, it is unclear whether Makefiles may be called
> > > "scripts".
> > This is an absurd interpretation. `The scripts used to control
> > compilation and installation of the executable' would be an empty set
> > for much GNU software if it didn't include the Makefiles. It is
> > obvious that that phrase was included in the GPL specifically to
> > ensure that the build system is covered.
> > If it's not obvious to someone then that person is either
> > (a) dishonest or (b) astonishingly out of touch with reality.
> I don't want to insist on (1) too. But I must agree with Joerg that it
> is unclear if Makefiles could be called as "scripts for compilation".
Do you consider debian/rules in all of the Debian packages a makefile or a
script? The fact that I can put '#!/usr/bin/make -f' at the top of a file
and run it as I would any other script would definitely make it appear to
be a script.
> Makefiles are programs written in non-scripting language. To understand
> what non-scripting language is, I googled this:
> """I'd define a scripting language as one which requires you to put $
> or whatever in front of variable names, and makes quoting strings an
> optional construct, and does string variable substitution inside string
> constants unless you force it not to with odd escape characters.
> A non-scripting language is one which has simple, clear-cut lexical
> conventions and parsing syntax."""
Well I guess that means Python isn't a scripting language since it fails to
meet at least the 'variable usage requires sigils' criteria.