On Wednesday 12 January 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 07:01:47PM CET:
> > On Wednesday 12 January 2011, Юрий Пухальский wrote:
> > > Aye, looks like it.
> > >
> > > I have no objections whatsoever, i just need some method to make it
> > > work, because it's my working project:)
> > >
> > To be honest, I'm starting to agree with Ralf more and more on these
> > issues; i.e., just " ... require a decent make ;-)".
>
> For some setups and projects, yes. I don't think I've ever claimed that
> Automake should require GNU make outright.
>
Not have I suggested (not intentionally at least) you did. Sorry if
I made it seem so somehow.
In fact, notice that I wrote (edited emphasis to underline my point):
... And *more than this* -- brace yourself -- *I*'m starting to think
that automake should really start supporting only GNU make ...
> On the contrary.
>
> > And more than this -- brace yourself -- I'm starting to think that
> > automake should *really* start supporting *only* GNU make (at least
> > from version 3.75 or so).
>
> If you want support for this, then you need to discuss away the
> downsides (i.e., convince those _opposed_ to the idea, not the
> rest).
>
Well, that's why I've posted my proposal: to hear from other contributors,
maintainers and users what the downsides might be in their opinion, because
I honestly can see no relevant one by myself.
> The upsides are obvious.
>
If I'm not deluding myself, most of the contents of my proposal were
aimed at showing why I believe that requiring GNU make is a reasonable
and sensible policy, not to show what the advantages of such a policy
would be -- quoting myself:
`` And the gains in terms of maintainability, testability, and
possibility of optimization are obvious. ''
> I was planing to introduce optional GNU make-specific code, and allowing
> to let the user specify "my project requires GNU make anyway", which
> would enable Automake to emit better code. Arguably more complex than
> requiring GNU make outright, but it wouldn't throw away all the make
> portability work that exists in Automake.
>
Hmm... so you're telling me that "This code should be kept because it
had been difficult to write it" is an acceptable rationale? ;->
(BTW, that portability-related work has already and definitely served
the purpose of making automake usage more widespread, so I don't think
the efforts that went into it would ever be "wasted", even if the code
they produced is going to be removed).
> But let me rephrase the critique in a poignant way: if you want to
> require GNU make anyway, what is your rational to not use quagmire
> instead of Automake?
>
You mean this?
<http://code.google.com/p/quagmire/>
Well, the fact that it took me ~ 3 minutes to find it with Google is a
good answer ... ;-)
All kidding aside, is yours a serious question? If yes, I have a serious
answer (well, several ones in fact), but I'd rather not take the time to
write it down properly unless that's really useful.
Thanks,
Stefano
