dumb question

[Paul Allen Newell]

On 1/4/2012 12:28 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:
> On 01/04/2012 04:22 PM, Paul Allen Newell wrote:
>> And that's the confusion on my end. You are stating that Marvin says
>> "make it +x" and you are saying it doesn't need to be. I asked this
>> dumb question to find out how I should treat this situation regardless
>> of "what works". Its about understanding whether a makefile is an
>> executable or if make is just treating it as input and the executable
>> part is under the hood.
> No....  I'm saying that Marvin first said that the Makefile should be +x
> but later corrected himself to say that it was /usr/bin/make he was
> thinking of and that certainly needs to be +x because it is the
> executable....
>
> [egreshko at f16-2 egreshko]$ file /usr/bin/make
> /usr/bin/make: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV),
> dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.32, stripped
>
> Again, "Makefile" or "makefile" need not be executable and in fact they
> aren't meant to be executable.
>
> [egreshko at misty transcode-1.0.2]$ chmod +x Makefile
> [egreshko at misty transcode-1.0.2]$ ./Makefile
> ./Makefile: line 19: srcdir: command not found
> ./Makefile: line 20: top_srcdir: command not found
> ./Makefile: line 22: datadir: command not found
> ./Makefile: line 22: pkgdatadir: command not found
> ./Makefile: line 23: libdir: command not found
> ./Makefile: line 23: pkglibdir: command not found
> ./Makefile: line 24: includedir: command not found
>
Ed:

My mis-read, thanks for setting me right on this.

I think I get it now

Thanks,
Paul