Re: Binding Directories

[Scott Klement <klemscot@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think the root of the problem, here, is that people are trying to use a
binding directory as a replacement for a Makefile  (or, what a Makefile in
UNIX would be used for)

IMHO, what the AS/400 needs is a good make utility.   (Yes, I know about
the utility that's in QUSRTOOL -- but it requires a C compiler, which I
don't have on the 400.)

It seems to me that if we had a make utility that worked as well as the
ones in the UNIX environments, we wouldn't need to try to get every module
we've ever created into a single binding directory.  

What does everyone else think?


On Mon, 15 Jan 2001, M. Lazarus wrote:

> Phil,
> 
> At 1/15/01 09:56 AM -0600, you wrote:
> >Why it does it is simple. The CRTPGM is not smart enough (and it shouldn't
> >be) to determine for you which of the identical exports you really want,
> >even if you order the srvpgms/modules in your libl so that the one you want
> >is the first one found. For the CRTPGM to make the choice for you, it would
> >need to 'know' more about your code. It's just protecting you from the very
> >real horrors of binding to the incorrect one.
> 
>   I disagree.  The /400 is designed in all other aspects to use the 
> *LIBL.  I don't care for this design.  If you really want a different 
> order, the CRTPGM supports explicit lib/module if you want to override the 
> *LIBL.
> 
>   -mark
> 

+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---