make(1)

[Vernon Schryver]

I wrote:
> Am I the only person in the world who thinks that make(1) should be compiled
> so that '-d' works?  Does no one else have enough memory or commit obscure
> errors that would be illuminated by `make -nd`?  `Make -p` just is not enough
> for my mistakes.
> 
>I guessed history was a good enough reason make(1) was built small in Microport
> 3.0e.  Finding the same restriction in ISC 2.0.2 has made me wonder if someone
> at AT&T is asleep at the helm.  (Presumably, ISC just uses cmd/make/make.mk
> as it comes from New Jersey.)

In article <14206 at haddock.ima.isc.com>, johna at haddock.ima.isc.com (John Adams) writes:
> Let's see.  The latest documentation I could find about -d was an old Sys III
> manual.  But I tried it anyway under ISC 2.0.2.  It worked!  What's your
> complaint?  Have you tried to use "make -nd"?  Do you have some axe to grind
> with Interactive?
> 
> John Adams	(home)	johna at grumpy.ima.isc.com	(617) 646-6491
> 		(work)	johna at haddock.ima.isc.com	(617) 661-7474

The following is the first thing my 9-day-old copy of 2.0.2 says to `make -nd`.

make: no debugging information available.

Make does procede to do normal stuff, but that's not what I'm grumbling
about.  It should have babbled thousands of lines as it computed timestamps
and considered rules.  The source one finds on the SVR3.[012] tapes
supports -d, if you compile it that way.  It can be very useful for
debugging hard makefiles, as well as proving bugs are in the makefile not
make itself.  In an NFS environment, I've found it invaluable.  Vendors in
this lowest end of the market should build the "big" version of make(1), as
they now build large UUCP.  In the high end of parallelizing make's, I don't
know about nmake, but believe smake/pmake supports such debugging.


I'm concerned by the attitude suggested by your posting.  I have no more
"ax to grind" with ISC than with any other concern that has accepted my
money.  My clumsy words, included above in their entirety unlike your
partial quote, tried to cast blame on AT&T rather than ISC.  Isn't
haddock.ima.isc.com where the ISC customer support people work?  Is your
attitude an official representation of the concern Interactive Systems
Corportation has for the happiness of its customers?  Even Microport and
Bell Tech never jumped on customers, no matter how stupid and offensive we
are.

All Other ISC employees whom I've recently met on the telephone or by
email, as well as others now at ISC I've known in the business up to 20
years, have been friendly, helpful, and polite.  They have provided very
useful leads for solving other difficulties I've had with 2.0.2.

Vernon Schryver
vjs at calcite.uucp