Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

Hello automakers. JFTR, a final word on this thread ... On Wednesday 12 January 2011, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > 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). > When I advanced

Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 6:31 PM, Paul Smith wrote: > On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 17:28 +0100, Steffen Dettmer wrote: >> When having a source three constructed of several (sub-) >> packages, how does a Beta-Build system looks like? Could there be >> tupfiles including sub-tup-files? >> >> What influence

Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 17:28 +0100, Steffen Dettmer wrote: > When having a source three constructed of several (sub-) > packages, how does a Beta-Build system looks like? Could there be > tupfiles including sub-tup-files? > > What influence has the choice of a Beta-Build to the > maintainability of

Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

* On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 12:08 AM, Paul Smith wrote: > * On Fri, 2011-01-14 at 19:57 +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: >> . >> >> No idea whether they are standardized somehow or somewhere. > > http://www.mail-archive.com/help-make@gnu.org/

Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

>From my perspective as a maintainer of the reference implementation of NTP, I value make portability and would be disappointed to see Automake become GNU-make-specific. We strive to make our tarballs easy to build and install on a wide variety of new and old systems. As an example, until a little

Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

hmm, is the "tupfile" syntax really as horrible as it looks? [ from the "examples" page: : hello.c |> gcc -Wall -c hello.c -o hello.o |> hello.o ] -miles -- Ich bin ein Virus. Mach' mit und kopiere mich in Deine .signature.

Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

On Fri, 2011-01-14 at 19:57 +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 07:55:17PM CET: > > Where do these terms 'alpha' and 'beta' build system originate from? > > I've read them in > . > > No idea w

Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

* Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 07:55:17PM CET: > Where do these terms 'alpha' and 'beta' build system originate from? I've read them in . No idea whether they are standardized somehow or somewhere. Cheers, Ralf

Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

Ralf, Where do these terms 'alpha' and 'beta' build system originate from? Bob -- Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer,http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/

Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

Hi Bob, * Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 04:04:35PM CET: > In addition to the above, Automake should be supplying enough explicit rule > information (pertaining to the actual needs of the current project) that the > underlying build tool should not have to go off in the weeds and tr

Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

* Guido Draheim wrote on Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 08:55:20PM CET: > By the way, I would find it more interesting to see some > automake-replacement that allows GNU-make extensions and > compiles them down to standard make as far as possible... Generally, I wouldn't, as I don't like the idea of reimple

Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

On Friday 14 January 2011, Steffen Dettmer wrote: > On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 8:39 PM, wrote: > > ``I truly dislike the idea of not keeping configuration and build > > steps separated.'' > > > > Maybe I'd just like a system that *allows* me to keep configuration > > and build steps clerarly disti

Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: (That, by the way, is what nobody ever tells you when they point you to the "Recursive Make Considered Harmful" paper: that walking the full dependency tree is more expensive than walking a factorized one. Sure, you need to keep the toplevel deps up t

Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 8:39 PM, wrote: >  ``I truly dislike the idea of not keeping configuration and build >   steps separated.'' > > Maybe I'd just like a system that *allows* me to keep configuration > and build steps clerarly distinct if I want to.  Yes, that would > be enough for me I guess.

Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

* NightStrike wrote on Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 05:12:46AM CET: > On 1/13/11, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > make is a bit flawed for real large projects because it always walks > > the whole dependency graph, unlike beta build systems who use a notify > > daemon and a database to only walk subgraphs known

Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

On 1/13/11, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > make is a bit flawed for real large projects because it always walks > the whole dependency graph, unlike beta build systems who use a notify > daemon and a database to only walk subgraphs known to be outdated. How big is real large? GCC uses make, for instan

Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

On Thu, 2011-01-13 at 20:38 +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 08:32:01PM CET: > > On Thu, 13 Jan 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > >You can implement hash-based dependencies inside GNU make if you like. > > >Or another make. Maybe someone has even done

Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

Hello Roger. I take up on a tangential issue here ... On Thursday 13 January 2011, Roger Leigh wrote: > > [MEGA-CUT] > > I would find it useful to make use of more advanced GNU > make-specific features on occasion, without automake complaining! > For this, I think having a new `portability-make'

Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

Am 13.01.2011 15:44, schrieb Stefano Lattarini: > > [3] IMVHO Automake have had its success because it was the first > project to fill an existing gap (offering an higher-level > make-based "language" with the GNU coding standards in mind), > > doesn "future" means? One month? One

Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 07:01:47PM +0100, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > To be honest, I'm starting to agree with Ralf more and more on these > issues; i.e., just " ... require a decent make ;-)". > > And more than this -- brace yourself -- I'm starting to think that > automake should *really* start s

Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

On Thu, 2011-01-13 at 12:50 -0600, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > FYI, ClearCase's clearmake is actually based on GNU make source code. > At least it was back when I was using it. Not that it matters but this is not _quite_ true... otherwise clearmake would fall under the GPL. What clearmake used to d

Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

Am 13.01.2011 19:50, schrieb Bob Friesenhahn: > On Thu, 13 Jan 2011, Guido Draheim wrote: >> * ClearCase - ships clearmake integrated with the build systems. >> and there are sure some other build systems that have a frontend to >> the user allowing for makefiles as the backend. > > FYI, ClearCase

Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

On Thursday 13 January 2011, Steffen Dettmer wrote: > On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 10:36 PM, wrote: > > - I think that keeping configuration and build steps separated is > > a very good idea. > > Do you mean this is a good idea in the context of todays systems > - or - > Do you mean this is good id

Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

* Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 08:32:01PM CET: > On Thu, 13 Jan 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > >You can implement hash-based dependencies inside GNU make if you like. > >Or another make. Maybe someone has even done so already. It has little > >to do with Automake. > > I have nev

Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

* Guido Draheim wrote on Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 08:25:05PM CET: > But GNU Make on its own has a very large feature-set that is strong enough to > be a build-system on its own. You don't need much of autoconf/automake > anymore!! Exactly. quagmire is one (other) implementation of that. I don't und

Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: * Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 07:50:08PM CET: Regardless, 'make's use of timestamps based on simple "newer than" analsys is not very robust in our real world. That may be true, but this issue is completely orthogonal to whether Aut

Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

Am 12.01.2011 19:01, schrieb Stefano Lattarini: > > GNU make is a basic component of the GNU system, actively maintained and > GNU make is very portable, easy to compile, and fully bootstrapping > GNU make is the default make program on GNU/Linux (okay, we're in > GNU make is readily available

Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

On Thursday 13 January 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 09:58:36PM CET: > > On Wednesday 12 January 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > The upsides are obvious. > > > > > If I'm not deluding myself, most of the contents of my proposal were > > aimed at

Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

* Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 07:50:08PM CET: > Regardless, 'make's use of timestamps based on simple "newer than" > analsys is not very robust in our real world. That may be true, but this issue is completely orthogonal to whether Automake caters to non-GNU make implementations

Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011, Guido Draheim wrote: * ClearCase - ships clearmake integrated with the build systems. and there are sure some other build systems that have a frontend to the user allowing for makefiles as the backend. FYI, ClearCase's clearmake is actually based on GNU make source code. A

Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

> > > [About GNU make] > > GNU make is a basic component of the GNU system, actively maintained and > developed, well documented, and required by other very important projects > (Linux Kernel and Git DVCS, for example). > > GNU make is very portable, easy to compile, and fully bootstrapping

Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011, Steffen Dettmer wrote: On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 3:39 AM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: While GNU make is a really good 'make' program, I think that 'make' in general is a flawed concept. Could you please explain this a bit? Make depends entirely on file timestamps and iterativ

Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

On Thursday 13 January 2011, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > On Wed, 12 Jan 2011, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > > > > Those you list above are very good *practical* reasons not to use quagmire > > (and the very fact that it took me 3 minutes to find that page with google > > was IMHO already a clear indicato

Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

2011/1/13 Stefano Lattarini : > On Thursday 13 January 2011, Юрий Пухальский wrote: >> Good day. >> >> I'll throw my humble userish $0.02 in here. >> >> First of all, i like the idea of autotools working in any POSIX >> enviroment, requiring a set of tools that is everywhere by definition. >> Becau

Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

On Thursday 13 January 2011, Юрий Пухальский wrote: > Good day. > > I'll throw my humble userish $0.02 in here. > > First of all, i like the idea of autotools working in any POSIX > enviroment, requiring a set of tools that is everywhere by definition. > Because when for example i try to compile

Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 10:36 PM, wrote: >  - I think that keeping configuration and build steps separated is >   a very good idea. Do you mean this is a good idea in the context of todays systems - or - Do you mean this is good idea in general and could be a design criteria for future build envi

Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 3:39 AM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > While GNU make is a really good 'make' program, I think that 'make' in > general is a flawed concept. Could you please explain this a bit? I like the `make' concept; in some situations I even love it. One example of such a situation is to

Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

Good day. I'll throw my humble userish $0.02 in here. First of all, i like the idea of autotools working in any POSIX enviroment, requiring a set of tools that is everywhere by definition. Because when for example i try to compile my project in hostile environment with suspicious admins that watc

Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 09:58:36PM CET: > On Wednesday 12 January 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > 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 >

Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011, Peter O'Gorman wrote: On 01/12/2011 12:01 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote: [About the purpose or "spirit" of Automake] Automake is about much more than just portability to different make implementations; it's about: No. The philosophy of the autotools has always been to

Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011, Stefano Lattarini wrote: Those you list above are very good *practical* reasons not to use quagmire (and the very fact that it took me 3 minutes to find that page with google was IMHO already a clear indicator that the project is dead in practice). The "answer" I was speaki

Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

On 01/12/2011 12:01 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote: [About the purpose or "spirit" of Automake] Automake is about much more than just portability to different make implementations; it's about: No. The philosophy of the autotools has always been to make the end users life easier, in part by

Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

Xochitl Lunde writes: > I see that I can get the source, but I don't want to have to compile this > thing if it's not purely script based. AFAIK, quagmire requires nothing other than GNU make (that was, I guess, the point of it)... > Also when I go to quagmire-discuss, there are a bunch of nast

Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

On Wednesday 12 January 2011, Xochitl Lunde wrote: > > > > > 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? > > > >

Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

> > > 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? > > > Well, the fact that it took me ~ 3 minutes to find it with Goog

Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

On Wednesday 12 January 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 07:01:47PM CET: > > > > > 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

Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

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, be

Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

On Wednesday 12 January 2011, Steffen Dettmer wrote: > 2011/1/12 Stefano Lattarini : > > I'm starting to think that > > automake should *really* start supporting *only* GNU make (at least > > from version 3.75 or so). > > I think also bash, gcc and most GNU tools are widely avialable. > They could

Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

> * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 07:01:47PM CET: > > > 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 dis

Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

* 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

Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

2011/1/12 Stefano Lattarini : > I'm starting to think that > automake should *really* start supporting *only* GNU make (at least > from version 3.75 or so). I think also bash, gcc and most GNU tools are widely avialable. They could be built using an old fixed automake. But where should this end? I