On Wednesday 23 November 2011, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Hi Stefano, > > Stefano Lattarini <stefano.lattar...@gmail.com> skribis: > > > On Tuesday 22 November 2011, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > > [...] > > >> It seems to me that this proposal would fill a niche between current > >> Automake and Quagmire. > >> > >> IMO that niche may be small. One of Automake’s strengths is to support > >> multiple make implementations. If you’re going to require GNU make, why > >> not take Quagmire’s approach, so you really get to benefit more from > >> GNU make features? > >> > > Basically, because I want something that work *from day zero*. > > Well Quagmire already “works”, right? :-) > Unfortunately no: it only has a small subset of features automake has, it's not easily usable by any real-work project, it lacks a testsuite, it lacks visibility.
> > <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake/2011-01/msg00077.html> > > I’m not convinced by these arguments. I think Quagmire could reasonably > be taken over by other hackers (it’s not that complex, after all), and > could be attractive to GNU hackers because it’s so close to Automake–if > only the “social” part would work well. > Automire would be even closer to automake at the beginning, because it would originate from the automake code base. Of course, the aim in the long run would be to turn Automire into something closely resembling Quagmire, so that one could truly take advantage of GNU make's features. Regards, Stefano
