Re: GNU Autoconf test version 2.59d available

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Tue, 2006-06-06 at 02:22 -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > => If automake doesn't hold what it promises, it's a bug in automake
> 
> At the very least there is a documentation problem in Automake,
> because nowhere does it say that you can't have a test named 'test' --
> a situation that caused coreutils 'make check' to fork-bomb as described in
> <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-coreutils/2006-06/msg00033.html>.
#8-) Never call a check program "test" - This should be a programming
beginner's knowledge ;-)

> Perhaps that problem could be worked around by changing all the
> makefiles that Automake generates, so that they somehow quote every
> word like "test" and "export" and etc., so that Solaris VPATH 'make'
> doesn't expand them.  However it's not obvious to me how to do that
> portably and reliably.  (And the resulting makefiles would be much
> harder to read.)
Implement an AM_CHECK_MAKE (or similar) to check if the make in use is
able to handle VPATHS as part of automake.
If all else fail, blacklist Solaris make for use with automake.

> >> We intend to suggest to end-users to use GNU make for
> >> VPATH builds;
> > If you make gmake mandatory for VPATH
> 
> The new wording isn't intended to make gmake mandatory;
As I read it, it's what effectively what it says.

As a consequence of this, it would only be logic to reflect this
behavioral change into automake, which would render many things in
automake much easier.

The next logic step would be to make bash mandatory for autoconf ...

Do you now sense the irrationality of your approach?

>  it is merely
> intended as advice to users who are typically not experts in these
> matters.  GNU make is the safest, as a rule, since it gets used the
> most in practice by Autoconf and Automake users.
Wrong. This is not autoconf's task, therefore you are in error to let
autoconf take care of it.

If automake doesn't work with VPATH's but gmake, automake should
implement this feature. 

Or, if this problem is limited to a subset of applications, these
applications should check for gmake.  

>   Other 'make'
> implementations might also work, but the rules for when they work and
> when they don't are too complicated to shoehorn into INSTALL.

So you agree, that making bash mandatory for autoconf is tremendous
simplification?

Ralf