[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Could automake-generated Makefiles required GNU make? (was: Re: [gnu

From: Bob Friesenhahn
Subject: Re: Could automake-generated Makefiles required GNU make? (was: Re: [gnu-prog-discuss] portability)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 14:48:50 -0600 (CST)
User-agent: Alpine 2.01 (GSO 1266 2009-07-14)

On Tue, 22 Nov 2011, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
there may be some benefit to package maintainers (hopefully by
making automake easier to use),

My hope is to manage, in the *long* run (real long), to turn automake
(or more precisely, its purpoted GNU-make-based successor, let's call
it "automire") into something *truly* extensible -- I mean, something
like autoconf-extensible.  This would be a huge win for the package

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 portable implementation language. Currently Automake is written in perl, which is not a GNU-approved or FSF-copyrighted language and is also something which would need to be installed in advance. If Automake was self-hosting then there would be no need for distributing pre-generated template files since Automake could generate everything it needs at run-time.

It would be quite useful for a FSF project to be spun-up to create an embeddable/small language interpreter and standard library which is capable of efficiently implementing complex make-like functionality ('automake') as well as providing functional replacements for any necessary string processing currently provided by 'sed', 'awk', and 'printf'. The sole function of the interpreter would be to provide the framework for building other software. This intepreter could form the basis for the new automake build tool.

Bob Friesenhahn
GraphicsMagick Maintainer,

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]