Re: TEST_NT hack and OpenBSD

[Sam S. <sd...@gn...>]

Hi Bruno,

> * Bruno Haible <oe...@py...t> [2017-03-17 02:05:21 +0100]:
>
>> without it module recompile requires `rm -rf` of the module dir, see
>> makemake.in:
>> 
>> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
>>   if [ "@TEST_NT@" = no ]; then # re-making a module requires rm -rf module
>>     newer(){ echo 'test -f $$m/'$1' -a '"'!'"' -f $@/'$2; }
>>   else # re-making a module just works
>>     newer(){ echo 'test -f $$m/'$1' -a $$m/'$1' -nt $@/'$2; }
>>   fi
>> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
>
> Ah, thanks for explaining. I had overlooked this use.
>
> I've now replaced this use of an unportable shell primitive with a
> small auxiliary program. It may also need some porting effort (for
> native Windows, maybe), but at least these portability problems will
> not propagate upward into portability problems regarding the 'make'
> program.

You added a dozen files and hundreds of lines of code to replace the
korn shell extension already available on almost all platforms (Linux,
MacOS, Cygwin - which probably cover 90+% of those who actually compile
CLISP).

The platforms which do not have bash or korn shell are not used for
active CLISP development and **RE**compiling modules is NOT a big deal
for them, so `rm -rf module-dir` is fine.

Are you sure this was a good idea?

-- 
Sam Steingold (http://sds.podval.org/) on darwin Ns 10.3.1504
http://steingoldpsychology.com http://www.childpsy.net http://memri.org
http://islamexposedonline.com http://iris.org.il http://honestreporting.com
When we break the law, they fine us, when we comply, they tax us.