> The syntax for DMAKE can be enough to put you off, but it seems immensely
> powerful and can probably be made to work like most other MAKEs.

> I have trouble with almost every makefile I attempt to use :-)...

DMAKE was, in fact, my inspiration for making BAKE.  I wanted to port my
bbs to OS/2 (this bbs I'm runing I wrote from scratch in C++, but it's dos,
and I wanted an OS/2 version.)  This required moving from the borland
compiler to EMX, changing the 16 bit structures to 32 bit structures, and
replacing all my I/O code.  In theory, I could do it in a month if I had
time.  I don't.

Anyway, borland had an IDE, EMX didn't, I tried messing with DMAKE and
decided that the maintenance required for the make file would be more than
my message base class (which is the biggest in the BBS), and I didn't want
to deal with it.

After the austin move settles down (and it's going to eat the rest of
february), I might have time to do bake 2.  I doubt I'll have time to
convert my board, because I'm trying to get into a master's program at
UT{at}A, which if successful will ensure I don't have any free time for a long
while.

Rob
 
--- Xblat