You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tomcat.apache.org by Roy Wilson <de...@bellatlantic.net> on 2000/11/13 14:00:14 UTC
Make rant
FWIW,
I've been unable to set up cross-compilers and other things because I
couldn't get enough knowledge to sort out the nested make files that
appear to have been written for a particular configuration (which was not
mine).
I've struggled to find what was for me a useable tutorial on make, but
did not succeed. Most seem to have been written by experts too close to
their subject. If someone can provide a link to something like "Make for
Dummies" I'd appreciate it. Having constructed abstract Turing Machines
to do arithmetic, read and written technical papers, I'd like to think
the problem is more than brain-death on my part. :-)
Roy
--
Roy Wilson
E-mail: designrw@bellatlantic.net
Re: Make rant
Posted by Matthew Dornquast <ma...@webhelp.com>.
Hi Roy!
>> If someone can provide a link to something like "Make for Dummies" I'd
appreciate it.
You betcha, and fyi-- this format is VERY similar to the make file Nick
Bauman, myself and others use at our place of employment. (Some might say
better!?)
At the very least, it's well documented.
http://geosoft.no/javamake.html
enjoy.
-Matthew
PS>I've been resisting the temptation to get involved on the ant rant
thread, but this link might suggest I'm a Make fan.
PPS> I'm not.
Clarification
Posted by Roy Wilson <de...@bellatlantic.net>.
Nick,
"Toy" was referring to size of the makefile, not it's usefulness. Thanks
to Matthew for the link.
Roy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
On 11/13/00, 6:31:13 PM, Nick Bauman <ni...@cortexity.com> wrote regarding
Re: Thanks for the make links and a rant:
> On Mon, 13 Nov 2000, Roy Wilson wrote:
> > Nick,
> >
> > I agree that your example is simple. Even I can understand and create
> > such "toy" makefile. What I am complaining about is getting
> Not a toy. Really works.
> By the way, Matthew, my boss, sent this earlier but it somehow never made
> it to the list:
> ------------MATTHEW------------
> Hi Roy!
> >
> > If someone can provide a link to something like "Make for Dummies" I'd
> > appreciate it.
> >
> You betcha, and fyi-- this format is VERY similar to the make file Nick
> Bauman, myself and others use at our place of employment. (Some might
> say better!?)
> At the very least, it's well documented.
> http://geosoft.no/javamake.html
> enjoy.
> -Matthew
> PS>I've been resisting the temptation to get involved on the ant rant
> thread, but this link might suggest I'm a Make fan.
> PPS> I'm not.
> ------------MATTHEW------------
> > evil/nasty/nested makefiles that don't work (unlike the MAKE_CONF
> > experience you've had) and having to understand all [exaggeration] of it
> > to find the presumably few line(s) that must be changed.
> If you don't know make, this will happen. Same with Ant. =)
> > I assume you're referring to Nash the game theorist. Back before WWII and
> > after, von Neumann (a founder of the discipline of computing) applied
> > functional analysis as developed by Banach to problems of mathematical
> > physics and economics. I didn't know that Nash used functional analysis
> > in game theory. Thanks for the opportunity to rant :-).
> Well, Nash is purported to have solved the embedding theorem and was
> working on a general theorem on turbulance before he lost his mind (maybe
> he was writing Makefiles when he snapped. I rememeber it was either
> Makefiles or Fermat's Last Theorem, I don't recall exactly, gah!)
> > Roy
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> >
> > On 11/13/00, 5:58:34 PM, Nick Bauman <ni...@cortexity.com> wrote regarding
> > Re: Thanks for the make links and a rant:
> >
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > The makefile I used to compile Tomcat is thus:
> >
> > > ---------8<----------
> > > # Keep track of the package name
> > > PACKAGE=org.apache
> >
> > > # Keep track of the package version
> > > VERSION=3_2
> >
> > > # where the maketools be
> > > MAKE_CONF=./maketools
> >
> > > include $(MAKE_CONF)/config.mk
> > > include $(MAKE_CONF)/rules.mk
> > > ---------8<----------
> >
> > > Can it be any simpler?
> >
> > > Now I know that there is a lot of magic in the MAKE_CONF, but then you
> > > don't have to worry about that. It just works.
> >
> > > On Mon, 13 Nov 2000, Roy Wilson wrote:
> >
> > > > Nick,
> > > >
> > > > I have a copy of the FSF make manual: As our president used to say "I
> > > > recur to my former statement [about make documentation]." :-) I'll have
> > > > to check out the O'Reilly reference. See my rant below.
> > > >
> > > > Roy
> > > >
> >
> > > --
> > > Nicolaus Bauman
> > > Software Engineer
> > > Simplexity Systems
> >
> >
> >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
> --
> Nicolaus Bauman
> Software Engineer
> Simplexity Systems
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Thanks for the make links and a rant
Posted by Nick Bauman <ni...@cortexity.com>.
On Mon, 13 Nov 2000, Roy Wilson wrote:
> Nick,
>
> I agree that your example is simple. Even I can understand and create
> such "toy" makefile. What I am complaining about is getting
Not a toy. Really works.
By the way, Matthew, my boss, sent this earlier but it somehow never made
it to the list:
------------MATTHEW------------
Hi Roy!
>
> If someone can provide a link to something like "Make for Dummies" I'd
> appreciate it.
>
You betcha, and fyi-- this format is VERY similar to the make file Nick
Bauman, myself and others use at our place of employment. (Some might
say better!?)
At the very least, it's well documented.
http://geosoft.no/javamake.html
enjoy.
-Matthew
PS>I've been resisting the temptation to get involved on the ant rant
thread, but this link might suggest I'm a Make fan.
PPS> I'm not.
------------MATTHEW------------
> evil/nasty/nested makefiles that don't work (unlike the MAKE_CONF
> experience you've had) and having to understand all [exaggeration] of it
> to find the presumably few line(s) that must be changed.
If you don't know make, this will happen. Same with Ant. =)
> I assume you're referring to Nash the game theorist. Back before WWII and
> after, von Neumann (a founder of the discipline of computing) applied
> functional analysis as developed by Banach to problems of mathematical
> physics and economics. I didn't know that Nash used functional analysis
> in game theory. Thanks for the opportunity to rant :-).
Well, Nash is purported to have solved the embedding theorem and was
working on a general theorem on turbulance before he lost his mind (maybe
he was writing Makefiles when he snapped. I rememeber it was either
Makefiles or Fermat's Last Theorem, I don't recall exactly, gah!)
> Roy
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> On 11/13/00, 5:58:34 PM, Nick Bauman <ni...@cortexity.com> wrote regarding
> Re: Thanks for the make links and a rant:
>
>
> <snip>
>
> > The makefile I used to compile Tomcat is thus:
>
> > ---------8<----------
> > # Keep track of the package name
> > PACKAGE=org.apache
>
> > # Keep track of the package version
> > VERSION=3_2
>
> > # where the maketools be
> > MAKE_CONF=./maketools
>
> > include $(MAKE_CONF)/config.mk
> > include $(MAKE_CONF)/rules.mk
> > ---------8<----------
>
> > Can it be any simpler?
>
> > Now I know that there is a lot of magic in the MAKE_CONF, but then you
> > don't have to worry about that. It just works.
>
> > On Mon, 13 Nov 2000, Roy Wilson wrote:
>
> > > Nick,
> > >
> > > I have a copy of the FSF make manual: As our president used to say "I
> > > recur to my former statement [about make documentation]." :-) I'll have
> > > to check out the O'Reilly reference. See my rant below.
> > >
> > > Roy
> > >
>
> > --
> > Nicolaus Bauman
> > Software Engineer
> > Simplexity Systems
>
>
>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
--
Nicolaus Bauman
Software Engineer
Simplexity Systems
Re: Thanks for the make links and a rant
Posted by Roy Wilson <de...@bellatlantic.net>.
Nick,
I agree that your example is simple. Even I can understand and create
such "toy" makefile. What I am complaining about is getting
evil/nasty/nested makefiles that don't work (unlike the MAKE_CONF
experience you've had) and having to understand all [exaggeration] of it
to find the presumably few line(s) that must be changed.
I assume you're referring to Nash the game theorist. Back before WWII and
after, von Neumann (a founder of the discipline of computing) applied
functional analysis as developed by Banach to problems of mathematical
physics and economics. I didn't know that Nash used functional analysis
in game theory. Thanks for the opportunity to rant :-).
Roy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
On 11/13/00, 5:58:34 PM, Nick Bauman <ni...@cortexity.com> wrote regarding
Re: Thanks for the make links and a rant:
<snip>
> The makefile I used to compile Tomcat is thus:
> ---------8<----------
> # Keep track of the package name
> PACKAGE=org.apache
> # Keep track of the package version
> VERSION=3_2
> # where the maketools be
> MAKE_CONF=./maketools
> include $(MAKE_CONF)/config.mk
> include $(MAKE_CONF)/rules.mk
> ---------8<----------
> Can it be any simpler?
> Now I know that there is a lot of magic in the MAKE_CONF, but then you
> don't have to worry about that. It just works.
> On Mon, 13 Nov 2000, Roy Wilson wrote:
> > Nick,
> >
> > I have a copy of the FSF make manual: As our president used to say "I
> > recur to my former statement [about make documentation]." :-) I'll have
> > to check out the O'Reilly reference. See my rant below.
> >
> > Roy
> >
> --
> Nicolaus Bauman
> Software Engineer
> Simplexity Systems
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Thanks for the make links and a rant
Posted by Nick Bauman <ni...@cortexity.com>.
Roy,
Having just read a biography of John Forbes Nash, I have but a wisp of
understanding of what a Banach space is.
However, you echo what I already said. Make is unlike any other tool in
the unix world. I think you could write a white paper on this,
seriously; like, entitled "where the hell did Make come from?" because
it's actually an example of how diverse a genius (or sadist,
depending on your prespective. I prefer the former) RMS is. It
resembles, at times, treatise on lingusitics. But I digress.
The makefile I used to compile Tomcat is thus:
---------8<----------
# Keep track of the package name
PACKAGE=org.apache
# Keep track of the package version
VERSION=3_2
# where the maketools be
MAKE_CONF=./maketools
include $(MAKE_CONF)/config.mk
include $(MAKE_CONF)/rules.mk
---------8<----------
Can it be any simpler?
Now I know that there is a lot of magic in the MAKE_CONF, but then you
don't have to worry about that. It just works.
On Mon, 13 Nov 2000, Roy Wilson wrote:
> Nick,
>
> I have a copy of the FSF make manual: As our president used to say "I
> recur to my former statement [about make documentation]." :-) I'll have
> to check out the O'Reilly reference. See my rant below.
>
> Roy
>
--
Nicolaus Bauman
Software Engineer
Simplexity Systems
Thanks for the make links and a rant
Posted by Roy Wilson <de...@bellatlantic.net>.
Nick,
I have a copy of the FSF make manual: As our president used to say "I
recur to my former statement [about make documentation]." :-) I'll have
to check out the O'Reilly reference. See my rant below.
Roy
--
Roy Wilson
E-mail: designrw@bellatlantic.net
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
<snip>
> http://www.gnu.org/manual/make/index.html
> It's not really that hard.
<snip>
Nothing is THAT hard once you have a context for new knowledge. For
example, once you know what a Banach space is (a normed linear space), it
is not THAT hard to understand what a Hilbert space is (a normed linear
space endowed with an inner product). Now you know what a Hilbert space
is, right? I don't take any pride in my "explanation" precisely because
it assumes knowledge that few non/new mathematicians have. If you have
that knowledge, I offer my congratulations/condolences. :-)
To begin to understand in a practical/computational way (yes, Dorothy,
economists and physicists do digital computation in Banach and Hilbert
space) the "explanation" I gave, however, you need to have worked with
simple abstract spaces like the vector space built on top of the set of
all continuous functions on the unit interval. Each continuous function
is like a point: You then define a distance function, consider sequences
of functions/points, convergence, topological completeness, etc. I would
only say that such work is not that HARD for those who already have the
context. My point was that most make documents I had seen seemed to
presuppose that I had that kind of contextual knowledge.
> But ant is much less opaque, to be sure. I think this is important and
the
> ant developers should be proud of this accomplishment.
> --
> Nicolaus Bauman
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Make rant
Posted by Nick Bauman <ni...@cortexity.com>.
On Mon, 13 Nov 2000, Roy Wilson wrote:
> I've struggled to find what was for me a useable tutorial on make, but
> did not succeed. Most seem to have been written by experts too close to
> their subject. If someone can provide a link to something like "Make for
> Dummies" I'd appreciate it. Having constructed abstract Turing Machines
> to do arithmetic, read and written technical papers, I'd like to think
> the problem is more than brain-death on my part. :-)
http://www.gnu.org/manual/make/index.html
It's not really that hard. At first glance a Makefile resembles
nothing else in Unix, it's not a shell, it's not a programming
language, and I think that's what puts people off of Make.
But ant is much less opaque, to be sure. I think this is important and the
ant developers should be proud of this accomplishment.
--
Nicolaus Bauman