[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make
From: |
Roger Leigh |
Subject: |
Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make |
Date: |
Thu, 13 Jan 2011 19:54:58 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) |
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 supporting *only* GNU make (at least
> from version 3.75 or so).
[...]
I certainly agree that there are several advantages to requiring GNU
make. But I don't think you touched on the most common practical
problem with the current situation.
In theory, automake is portable and targets any make providing the basic
POSIX/SUS-specified functionality. In reality, many (most?) automake-
using projects fail to build with non-GNU make. This is /not/ because
of any deficiencies with automake, it's because the Makefile.ams are
only ever tested with GNU make, and so any nonportable constructs are
not picked up on. Without regular testing using a set of different
make variants, we end up supporting GNU make by default--because that's
what the overwhelming majority of developers and users are using.
In a number of projects I maintain the build infrastructure for, we
already mandate GNU make. This is just reflecting a simple reality: we
don't have the resources to continually test for and fix portability
issues in the Makefiles. And if we do take the time to do this, it's
rapidly broken again because testing with GNU make doesn't pick up any
regressions. We also don't have /any/ feedback from non-GNU make users
telling us about portability issues, so GNU make becomes a /de facto/
requirement in any case. Supporting non-GNU makes just isn't worth the
effort--we gain nothing from it.
Note I'm not suggesting that automake immediately stop being portable
to other makes. But I don't believe it's serving a useful purpose for
the vast majority of automake users. I would find it useful to make
use of more advanced GNU make-specific features on occasion, without
automake complaining!
Regards,
Roger
--
.''`. Roger Leigh
: :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
`. `' Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/
`- GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848 Please GPG sign your mail.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
- Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make, (continued)
- Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make, Ralf Wildenhues, 2011/01/14
- Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make, Paul Smith, 2011/01/14
- Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make, Steffen Dettmer, 2011/01/17
- Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make, Paul Smith, 2011/01/17
- Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make, Steffen Dettmer, 2011/01/17
- Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make, Miles Bader, 2011/01/14
- Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make, Guido Draheim, 2011/01/13
- Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make, Paul Smith, 2011/01/13
Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make, Guido Draheim, 2011/01/13
Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make,
Roger Leigh <=
Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make, Dave Hart, 2011/01/16
Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make, Stefano Lattarini, 2011/01/29