Why do I get "make: command not found" (FAQ alert?)

[Larry Hall]

Igor Pechtchanski wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Larry Hall wrote:
> 
> 
>>Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Richard Elsberry wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hello,
>>>>
>>>>What am I missing? When I try to run $make I get the message "bash:
>>>>make: command not found." I've tried searching all of the archives. The
>>>>version is 1.3.22-1.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks,
>>>>Richard
>>>
>>>
>>>You're missing the "make" package.  In the future, if you'd like to find
>>>out which package contains a particular command, use the package search
>>>page at <http://cygwin.com/packages/> and search for, in this example,
>>>"bin/make(.exe| )".
>>>      Igor
>>>P.S. I had a nagging feeling this was somewhere in the FAQ, but couldn't
>>>find it.  If it's not there already, could this be added?
>>
>>Looks like I goofed on my reply and sent it only to Richard.
>>
>>The FAQ entry for this is:
>>
>>What packages should I download?
>><http://cygwin.com/faq/faq_toc.html#TOC13>
>>
>>But I wouldn't mind if it were augmented to something like the following:
>>
>>What packages should I download or how do I find out which package xxx
>>utility is in?
> 
> 
> Larry,
> 
> That FAQ entry doesn't answer Richard's question at all (and is not very
> intuitively related, since you need to know in advance that you're missing
> some package to find that entry useful).  I'd suggest having a *separate*
> "Where can I find {make|more|...}" FAQ entry with the above contents, and
> cross-reference the entry you mentioned from there.  That should supercede
> the 'Where can I find "more"' entry (<http://cygwin.com/faq/faq_4.html#SEC52>),
> which is outdated and misleading.
> 	Igor

As I said, I'd have no objections to the FAQ entry I pointed to being
augmented to include language like what I suggested.  In fact, I'd prefer
that the entry be changed to include such language at least.  But David
and I discussed this in the past and he felt it should remain as is.

I agree that this entry doesn't catch people's eyes when they have the
problem like Richard's.  However, it *does* answer the question.  Of
course, I have no objection to expanding this entry or to an alternative
entry either, although I'm not convinced listing specific utility names
as you suggest is the best way to go.

As far as the entry about 'more' is concerned, it's a special case.  I
think it is appropriate but should mention for "die-hards" that
there is a package that contains the outdated 'more' utility if 'less'
isn't appropriate for some reason.

-- 
Larry Hall                              http://www.rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc.                      (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
838 Washington Street                   (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Holliston, MA 01746


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/