On 11/22/2011 8:03 PM, Dave Hart wrote:
If Autotools are primarily intended to support those using GNU/Linux
systems and portability is not a goal, your argument that GNU has won
and BSD compatibility of free software is no longer worthwhile makes
sense.
Where did I say automake 2 = Linux-only?
What I said is that if this next-generation version of automake were to
require GNU make, it would probably still support 99.999% of all hosts
it currently targets out of the box, and could pick up the last 0.001%
with a widely available prerequisite install.
The 99.999% means Linux, OS X, Cygwin, and MinGW, at least, plus those
systems where GNU make wasn't the default but is installed anyway for
some other reason.
For those that think it's a huge problem for an autotools based package
to have *any* build prerequisites, I used Unices in the bad old days
where sed and awk were optional installs, and that didn't stall
autotools' deployment back then, when it was more vulnerable. A
requirement to install GNU make to build a Makefile generated via
automake 2 won't kill the autotools now.
My point is not to argue in favor of GNU vs BSD or anything else
religious like that. I am simply pointing out that a requirement for
GNU make is scarcely more stringent these days than requiring a vaguely
POSIX compatible shell.
As Ralf suggests, Automake has made it this far without requiring more
than portable make.
Yes, and we've bought that last 0.001% of compatibility with bigger,
slower, and harder to read generated Makefiles and configure scripts.
TANSTAAFL. If the price to lose some bloat, gain some speed, and
increase the clarity of these files is that I have to install GNU make
on the 0.001% of systems where it isn't installed already, that seems a
fair trade.
