On 01/17/2012 09:04 PM, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
>
> Git please. It's fast, used by important GNU projects [1] ... [SNIP]
>
> [1] http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/coreutils.git
>
And FTR also:
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/libtool.git
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/autoconf.git
http:/
On 01/17/2012 06:28 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> For sure once I actually take the plunge and move to a "real" source
>> code control system [...]
>
> May I suggest bzr? It is a GNU project and is used by Emacs, wget,
> and a few others on Savannah.
Git please. It's fast, used by important GNU p
>> In the presence of a version control system, even one as basic as CVS,
>> deletion isn't fundamentally worse than leaving them to bit-rot out of
>> [sight] - they can always be recovered from the version-control system
>
> Not for people who only get the release tarballs.
Good point - didn't th
> From: Edward Welbourne
> Cc: psm...@gnu.org, make-...@gnu.org, bug-make@gnu.org
> Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 17:08:02 +0100
>
> > How about moving them to a subdirectory, where they could bit-rot out
> > of sight?
>
> In the presence of a version control system, even one as basic as CVS,
> deletio
>> The contents of these files don't seem so different to me that they
>> couldn't be consolidated, perhaps with some command-line overrides
>> or similar. Or, maybe some of them are just not needed; do we
>> really have to be able to build with nmake and smake?
>
> How about moving them to a subd
> From: Paul Smith
> Cc: make-...@gnu.org, bug-make@gnu.org
> Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 18:01:02 -0500
>
> > NMakefile is for building the MS-Windows port with nmake, the
> > Microsoft's make program. Given that build_w32.bat exists, we could
> > remove it (and the same goes for the make_msvc_* fil
On Mon, 2012-01-16 at 06:59 -0500, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > From: Paul Smith
> > 1. Standard configure/Makefile.am
> > 2. build.sh
> > 3. Makefile.DOS
> > 4. NMakefile
> > 5. SMakefile
> > 6. build_w32.bat
> > 7. Makefile.ami
> > 8. makefile.vms
> > 9.
> From: Paul Smith
> Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 17:53:25 -0500
> Reply-To: psm...@gnu.org
>
> Going through the content of GNU make sources recently it occurs to me
> we have a LOT of ways to build GNU make. Maybe at one time or another
> all these different ways were necessary but I wonder if they
Hi all.
Going through the content of GNU make sources recently it occurs to me
we have a LOT of ways to build GNU make. Maybe at one time or another
all these different ways were necessary but I wonder if they still are.
Can't we reduce them somewhat?
For ways to build GNU make we have:
1.
