On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 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".
> 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,
are all valid make varialbes.
> and makes quoting strings an optional construct,
Direct quote from the `make' info file:
objects = main.o foo.o bar.o utils.o
> and does string variable substitution inside string constants unless
> you force it not to with odd escape characters.
I'll leave out the example to keep your and my sanity on par with some
standard we both may want to adhere to. Check, anyway.
> A non-scripting language is one which has simple, clear-cut lexical
> conventions and parsing syntax."""
Anyone claiming that make has 'simple, clear-cut lexical conventions'
needs to go see a doctor.
How's it that make isn't a scripting language?
Fun will now commence
-- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4