tr@samadams.princeton.edu (Tom Reingold) (10/27/90)
There is a package in comp.sources.misc called dmake which is supposed
to run on several operating systems. I use UNIX and DOS. Currently I
am happy with NDMAKE by Don Kneller. It runs under DOS and it emulates
just about all of UNIX's make.
Is there a reason I should switch to DMAKE? It would take some trouble
to download and compile.
--
Tom Reingold
tr@samadams.princeton.edu OR ...!princeton!samadams!tr
"Warning: Do not drive with Auto-Shade in place. Remove
from windshield before starting ignition."pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) (10/31/90)
On 26 Oct 90 21:51:46 GMT, tr@samadams.princeton.edu (Tom Reingold) said: tr> There is a package in comp.sources.misc called dmake which is tr> supposed to run on several operating systems. I use UNIX and DOS. tr> Currently I am happy with NDMAKE by Don Kneller. It runs under DOS tr> and it emulates just about all of UNIX's make. tr> Is there a reason I should switch to DMAKE? It would take some tr> trouble to download and compile. Well, dmake is very very portable, and has some significant and very useful extensions, as well as being System V make compatible (which is not so important for me). it is also being actively supported by its author. It is also quite a bit more elegant than other extended makes I have seen, e.g. GNU make, if if not quite as cake, which is however a world apart. -- Piercarlo "Peter" Grandi | ARPA: pcg%uk.ac.aber.cs@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth | UUCP: ...!mcsun!ukc!aber-cs!pcg Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk
root@cca.ucsf.edu (Systems Staff) (11/06/90)
In article <4034@rossignol.Princeton.EDU>, tr@samadams.princeton.edu (Tom Reingold) writes: > There is a package in comp.sources.misc called dmake which is supposed > to run on several operating systems. I use UNIX and DOS. Currently I > am happy with NDMAKE by Don Kneller. It runs under DOS and it emulates > just about all of UNIX's make. > > Is there a reason I should switch to DMAKE? It would take some trouble > to download and compile. I have never seen sources for ndmake; if it is only a binary distribution that would be a good enough reason to switch. Thos Sumner Internet: thos@cca.ucsf.edu (The I.G.) UUCP: ...ucbvax!ucsfcgl!cca.ucsf!thos BITNET: thos@ucsfcca U.S. Mail: Thos Sumner, Computer Center, Rm U-76, UCSF San Francisco, CA 94143-0704 USA I hear nothing in life is certain but death and taxes -- and they're working on death. #include <disclaimer.std>
speelmo@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Lance Speelmon -- UCS) (11/06/90)
Does anybody know where I can find the source for dmake? Thanks, Lance ============================================================================ Lance Speelmon | University Computing Services speelmo@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu | Network Operations Center ============================================================================
lbr@holos0.uucp (Len Reed) (11/28/90)
In article <70163@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> speelmo@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Lance Speelmon -- UCS) writes: >Does anybody know where I can find the source for dmake? Dmake was written by Dennis Vadura of the University of Waterloo, and is avaiable for anonymous ftp from the U. of W: watmsg.uwaterloo.ca. Address is 129.97.129.9. It is in the pub/src directory, set your mode to binary, and copy either: dmake-3.6.tar.Z - compressed tar format dmake-3.6.zoo - zoo archive It was posted to comp.sources.misc, and patches went to comp.sources.bugs. If you get it from somewhere other than Waterloo (it's bound to be at a number of archive sites), be sure you get the patched version. This is only of minor significance unless you'll be running on DOS. The unpatched DOS code has some problems. I have used dmake a great deal and have even worked a little on internals. It's as good as any make, far better than most, and supports a wide number of platforms. I use it to maintain a ROM-based system that also runs in emulator form on DOS, 2 versions of Unix and 286 and 386 Xenix. Dmake is the only thing I know that can handle it. I also use it for my routine making, though. Recommended without reservation. -- Len Reed Holos Software, Inc. Voice: (404) 496-1358 UUCP: ...!gatech!holos0!lbr
jdudeck@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John R. Dudeck) (11/29/90)
In an article lbr@holos0.uucp (Len Reed) wrote: >I have used dmake a great deal and have even worked a little on internals. >It's as good as any make, far better than most, and supports a wide >number of platforms. I use it to maintain a ROM-based system that also >runs in emulator form on DOS, 2 versions of Unix and 286 and 386 Xenix. >Dmake is the only thing I know that can handle it. I also use it >for my routine making, though. How is dmake different from garden-variety make? I use ndmake on my pc. How is ndmake different from dmake? -- John Dudeck "If it's Object Oriented then by jdudeck@Polyslo.CalPoly.Edu definition it's A Good Thing". ESL: 62013975 Tel: 805-545-9549 -- D. Stearns