[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: allow convenient library in subdirectory
From: |
Tim Van Holder |
Subject: |
Re: allow convenient library in subdirectory |
Date: |
Tue, 10 Jul 2001 19:39:16 +0200 |
> Tim> Well, as I understand it automake needs very few changes to work
> Tim> on my system (DOS box under WinME), so I figured it was already
> Tim> DOS-friendly where it counted.
>
> Hmm... my DOS/Windows inexperience shows off. I thought that
> some work would be needed to turn the slashes embeded in the
> Makefiles into back-slashs at some point (config.status).
> Obviously (from your comment) it works as is.
Well, that's thanks to DJGPP, not DOS - our libc accepts both forward and
backward slashes, and so does our port of make.
> This leads me to two other questions:
>
> - Does your comment apply to (plain) MS-DOS too? (I'm aware
> that Windows accepts Unix-style filenames, but does it still
> stand for DOS? So far I believed it was not the case.)
No, neither DOS nor non-NT Windows support forward slashes; it's our
libc that does. As long as the filenames only go through DJGPP-based
commands, there's no problem. Only the shell has some issues (while it
can accept both slash styles, backslashes have special meaning and
require quoting). And if DOS/Windows commands are used in makefiles,
the slashes must be flipped to DOS mode. This is not usually a problem
for automake, as it is mainly used for packages that originated on
Unixy systems; automake _might_ need special machinery to support native
DOS packages.
All this is basically helped along by our libc; on OS/2, all this is
not true, as its libc apparently does not support both styles (that, or
package ports for OS/2 haven't been similarly updated).
> - Since Windows accepts slashes, and Unices do not accept
> backslashes, shouldn't Automake constraint the programmer to
> use the portable way? (i.e. banning backslashes)
Well, yes - but as noted above, Windows does not, of itself, support
forward slashes. Plus, I think we don't want automake to be "restricted"
to portable apps; it's still quite a useful tool for packages that only
support a single system.
Re: allow convenient library in subdirectory, Tom Tromey, 2001/07/16
- Re: allow convenient library in subdirectory, Tim Van Holder, 2001/07/17
- Re: allow convenient library in subdirectory, Tom Tromey, 2001/07/17
- Re: allow convenient library in subdirectory, Tim Van Holder, 2001/07/17
- Re: allow convenient library in subdirectory, Tim Van Holder, 2001/07/17
- Re: allow convenient library in subdirectory, Akim Demaille, 2001/07/18
Re: allow convenient library in subdirectory, Tom Tromey, 2001/07/16