Re: Could automake-generated Makefiles required GNU make?

Hi Stefano, Stefano Lattarini 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 i

Re: Could automake-generated Makefiles required GNU make?

Hi, Reuben Thomas skribis: > Or you could use Lua (www.lua.org) Or even GNU Guile: - embedded in GNU Make: . - on its own: . Thanks, Ludo’.

Re: Could automake-generated Makefiles required GNU make? (was: Re: [gnu-prog-discuss] portability)

On Tue, 22 Nov 2011, Richard Stallman wrote: > 1. We start requiring GNU make in an "experimental" automake 2.0 >development line (which might, and will, break whathever >backward-compatibility gets in its way). > > If we want to experiment with this, we should not do so in

Re: Could automake-generated Makefiles required GNU make? (was: Re: [gnu-prog-discuss] portability)

Honestly, there are such users today? I mean, almost every Unix newbie these days either: - installs a Linux distro, Do you mean a GNU/Linux distro? If it is Linux alone, it won't even run. The practice of ignoring the GNU Project (us!) and calling the GNU system "Linux" hurts our

Re: Could automake-generated Makefiles required GNU make? (was: Re: [gnu-prog-discuss] portability)

On 2011-11-22 20:33 +0100, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > On Tuesday 22 November 2011, Nick Bowler wrote: > > On 2011-11-22 17:46 +0100, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > > > See also: > > > > > > > Yes, it is sad that many package maintaine

Re: [gnu-prog-discuss] Could automake-generated Makefiles required GNU make?

On 11/23/2011 8:08 AM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: Beyond that, it mostly comes down to this simple question: "What do I type in order to invoke GNU make on this system"? No, that's easily wrapped. Aautoconf can write out both a GNUmakefile and a Makefile. When both are present, GNU make will r

Re: [gnu-prog-discuss] Could automake-generated Makefiles required GNU make?

On 11/22/2011 8:06 PM, Harlan Stenn wrote: Warren wrote: On 11/22/2011 6:02 PM, Harlan Stenn wrote: The BSDs have their good reasons to want to avoid GPL'd code, especially GPL3. Besides, why should BSD purity get to hold back the Autotools? So GNU/Linux purity is fine but BSD purity is not

Re: [gnu-prog-discuss] Could automake-generated Makefiles required GNU make?

On Wed, 23 Nov 2011, Dave Hart wrote: In other words, Harlan has indicated to me a non-recursive Makefile sounds good in eliminating build system bugs due to each directory's Makefile having a limited view of the whole, and I agree, but he doesn't like the idea of giving up the ability to "make"

Re: [gnu-prog-discuss] Could automake-generated Makefiles required GNU make?

On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 14:39, Warren Young wrote: > 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 file

Re: [gnu-prog-discuss] Could automake-generated Makefiles required GNU make?

On Wed, 23 Nov 2011, Warren Young wrote: 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 h

Re: [gnu-prog-discuss] Could automake-generated Makefiles required GNU make?

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 21:45, Harlan Stenn wrote: > NTP pretty much runs everywhere.  It was  not that long ago that NTP > dropped support for K&R C compilers, and at that point required ANSI C > (and I'm not sure if it's C89/C90 or C99, but nobody has complained so I > haven't looked harder). N

Re: [gnu-prog-discuss] Could automake-generated Makefiles required GNU make?

On 2011-11-22 17:38 -0700, Warren Young wrote: > - Reduced build overhead. GNU make can do many things internally that > standard make(1) needs to shell out to do. For example, given a list of > *.cpp names, generate *.o: > > OBJECTS=$(SOURCES:.cpp=.o) > > You might think this is a bad e

Re: [gnu-prog-discuss] Could automake-generated Makefiles required GNU make?

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

Re: Could automake-generated Makefiles required GNU make? (was: Re: [gnu-prog-discuss] portability)

On Tuesday 22 November 2011, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > On Tue, 22 Nov 2011, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > > >> In order for this to work, Automake would need to become self-hosting > >> (not need other packages to be installed in advance) and written only > >> in a GNU-approved and FSF-copyrighted por

Re: Could automake-generated Makefiles required GNU make? (was: Re: [gnu-prog-discuss] portability)

On Wednesday 23 November 2011, Dave Hart wrote: > > [HUGE MEGA SNIP] > > I like RMS's idea of switching one or two GNU packages to require GNU > make to test the waters. Obviously, GNU make itself needs to require > only portable make to enable bootstrapping. > If I'm not mistaken, GNU make doesn'

Re: [gnu-prog-discuss] Could automake-generated Makefiles required GNU make?

Hi Warren. On Wednesday 23 November 2011, Warren Young wrote: > On 11/22/2011 10:33 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > > So far, automake has not been using gmake, so why should it > > now start doing so? > > Because gmake is all but ubiquitous, and has been so for a decade. > > The only exception