peterson@MCC.COM (James Peterson) (10/02/87)
The makefiles for X11 fail to use complete path names for many Unix
programs. For example, in the *.macros files in util/imake.includes,
are the definitions of AS, CC, LD, LINT, and MAKE. These should be
complete pathnames, as:
AS = /bin/as
CC = /bin/cc
LD = /bin/ld
LINT = /usr/bin/lint
MAKE = /bin/make
Also, in the Makefile for fonts, there are instances of ls, rm, sed, and
awk.
The problem is that some of us have local variants of these routines
which have been modified to meet our needs. These do not always match
the expected behavior of the scripts.
For example, some of our people have modified 'ls' to act as
'ls -l' when used with no arguments. Similarly,
many sites have modified 'rm' to prevent inadvert file
deletion. 'rm' is used 847 times in the X11 Makefiles. It might
be wise to add rm (and other Unix program names) to the *.macros files.
--
James Peterson
james.peterson@mcc.com or ...sally!im4u!milano!petersondiamant@hpfclp.HP.COM (John Diamant) (10/04/87)
> The makefiles for X11 fail to use complete path names for many Unix > programs. For example, in the *.macros files in util/imake.includes, > are the definitions of AS, CC, LD, LINT, and MAKE. These should be > complete pathnames, as: > > AS = /bin/as > CC = /bin/cc > LD = /bin/ld > LINT = /usr/bin/lint > MAKE = /bin/make I don't think so. Better control of your path while compiling (maybe including a path in the makefiles themselves) would be a much better way to handle this. You are assuming that every UNIX implementation puts every command in the same spot. That is a no-no. It would be much better to restrict your path to not include the modified versions of programs you don't want used, then it would to hard code paths of everything into makefiles. John Diamant UUCP: {hplabs,hpfcla}!hpfclp!diamant Hewlett Packard Co. ARPA Internet: diamant%hpfclp@hplabs.HP.COM Fort Collins, CO