Hi Stefano, On 2011-11-21 21:56 +0100, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > > > Notice that, despite of the (semi)-consensus reached there, I'm becoming > > > more and more convinced that, in the long run, requiring GNU make to run > > > the automake-generated Makefiles would be an acceptable move (for automake > > > 2.0, that is). But only because GNU make is *so* much better than > > > portable make (which is extremely limited), because GNU make is very > > > portable and easy to build and install (and free from bootstrapping > > > problems AFAIK), and because the incompatibilities between different > > > make versions are so appalling.
I think this discussion is for the most part ignoring what is (IMO) the most important issue: it must be easy for ordinary (non-developer) users to build free software packages! This especially includes users who have no idea that there's a difference between GNU make and the version of "make" that is already on their system. This is, I think, the single best way to encourage users to become more involved in the free software community. If the user can't easily build a package, they won't test new versions and they won't test patches. (It's truly unfortunate that many popular GNU/Linux distros deliberately make this more difficult than it needs to be, but I digress). I have no doubt that using GNU make will make the the automake maintainers' jobs easier. It might even make the jobs of individual package maintainers easier. But when a user building a free software package for the first time in their life runs "./configure && make", and receives a spew of cryptic messages about syntax errors or worse, I suspect that their first reaction is not going to be "Whoops! I should have run gmake instead." More likely it will involve much more colourful language, and they will be left with a bitter impression. Now, I'm not fundamentally opposed to the idea, but it has to be done _right_. Cheers, -- Nick Bowler, Elliptic Technologies (http://www.elliptictech.com/)
