Re: [Module::Build] Ready for 0.22?

[Nicholas C. <ni...@cc...>]

On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 04:31:43PM -0600, Ken Williams wrote:
> 
> On Tuesday, January 13, 2004, at 07:48  AM, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
> >I was on my way updating the FreeBSD's port to 0.22 and I ran into a
> >problem, Module::Build now needed gmake to build, now, I know, gmake 
> >should
> >be installed on almost every FreeBSD system, but well, why bother when 
> >only
> >a one line patch like can have make work instead :
> >
> >--- lib/Module/Build/Compat.pm~ Sun Jan 11 05:19:59 2004
> >+++ lib/Module/Build/Compat.pm  Tue Jan 13 14:44:22 2004
> >@@ -144,7 +144,7 @@
> >        $perl -e unlink -e shift $makefile
> >
> > force_do_it :
> >-       @
> >+
> > EOF
> 
> I don't know the proper answer here - a previous patch had me put the 
> '@' *in* the file, for much the same reason (doing so made it work with 
> more 'make' tools, supposedly...).
> 
> Anyone able to sort this out?

Off the top of my head, @ will mean "don't echo the command"
There is no command after it, so I guess one system's make was happy with
that but didn't like that rule to build force_do_it not having and
"commands", whereas FreeBSD make doesn't mind there being no commands,
but doesn't like a no-echo of ""

Does

	@/bin/true

make everybody happy?

[or @$(NOOP)
assuming that there is a NOOP macro defined earlier in the Makefile]


Nicholas Clark