From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <zsh-workers-return-19489-mason-zsh=primenet.com.au@sunsite.dk>
Received: (qmail 2912 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2004 07:36:56 -0000
Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.247.90)
  by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 28 Feb 2004 07:36:56 -0000
Received: (qmail 15950 invoked by alias); 28 Feb 2004 07:36:50 -0000
Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Seq: 19489
Received: (qmail 15900 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2004 07:36:50 -0000
Received: from localhost (HELO sunsite.dk) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 28 Feb 2004 07:36:50 -0000
X-MessageWall-Score: 0 (sunsite.dk)
Received: from [66.93.131.57] by sunsite.dk (MessageWall 1.0.8) with SMTP; 28 Feb 2004 7:36:49 -0000
Received: from lorien.emufarm.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by lorien.emufarm.org (8.12.7/8.12.7) with ESMTP id i1S7ak1t031422;
	Fri, 27 Feb 2004 23:36:46 -0800
Received: (from duvall@localhost)
	by lorien.emufarm.org (8.12.7/8.12.7/Submit) id i1S7aiFS031421;
	Fri, 27 Feb 2004 23:36:44 -0800
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 23:36:44 -0800
From: Danek Duvall <duvall@emufarm.org>
To: Clint Adams <clint@zsh.org>
Cc: Peter Stephenson <pws@csr.com>, Zsh hackers list <zsh-workers@sunsite.dk>
Subject: Re: 4.2.0-pre-1
Message-ID: <20040228073644.GC28919@lorien.emufarm.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Danek Duvall <duvall@emufarm.org>,
	Clint Adams <clint@zsh.org>, Peter Stephenson <pws@csr.com>,
	Zsh hackers list <zsh-workers@sunsite.dk>
References: <20040227172236.GA22597@lorien.emufarm.org> <8344.1077905441@csr.com> <20040228065235.GB484@scowler.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20040228065235.GB484@scowler.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i

On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 01:52:36AM -0500, Clint Adams wrote:

> > It used widely available but not necessarily universal `make'
> > extensions.
> 
> > I certainly don't have any time to take on yet more configure
> > commitments myself, it's up to Clint.
> 
> I'll take a stab at forward-porting it.  I suppose I can try to test
> whether make(1) supports 'include', '.include', or neither, and trying
> to cope with the situation.

Was there anything wrong with Bart's suggestion to just copy the
necessary rules directly into the generated Makefile?

Danek