[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [gnu-prog-discuss] Could automake-generated Makefiles required GNU m
From: |
Stefano Lattarini |
Subject: |
Re: [gnu-prog-discuss] Could automake-generated Makefiles required GNU make? |
Date: |
Tue, 22 Nov 2011 17:13:09 +0100 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/2.6.30-2-686; KDE/4.6.5; i686; ; ) |
On Tuesday 22 November 2011, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 11/22/2011 04:35 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> > 1. "Automake 2" turns out to be a failure, it gets abandoned, and
> > "Automake 1" becomes again the center of all our developement
> > efforts. No problem for you, since you're still using this older
> > automake.
> >
> > 2. "Automake 2" is a success, and we drop support for Automake 1. At
> > this point, it shouldn't be too big a pain for you to convert to the
> > new automake (a good documentation about incompatibilities between,
> > and/or transition from, automake 1 and 2 should exist at this point).
> > Also, assuming that many other packages are using automake 2 by now,
> > and thus requiring GNU make, it should be much more acceptable for
> > the NTP build system to do the same.
>
> A half transition happens, which turns out to be a nightmare until
> Automake 2 adoption actually becomes common. This is exactly what
> happen between Automake 1.5 and Automake 1.8, each of which introduced
> many backwards-incompatible features, and between Autoconf 2.50 and
> "some time later".
>
Hmm, good point... maybe the safest way to prevent this is to make it
clear that this would be a *new project*, that while inspired to automake
and sprouting from its codebase, has different goals and assumptions and
APIs? In particular, a new name might be warranted... What about
"AutoMire"? It's not already taken (just make a web search), it gives
some due credit to Quagmire (from which I'd like to steal as much as
I can :-), and will allow us to retain the `AM_' namespace.
Regards,
Stefano
- Re: [gnu-prog-discuss] Could automake-generated Makefiles required GNU make?, (continued)
- Re: [gnu-prog-discuss] Could automake-generated Makefiles required GNU make?, Reuben Thomas, 2011/11/22
- Re: [gnu-prog-discuss] Could automake-generated Makefiles required GNU make?, Warren Young, 2011/11/22
- Re: [gnu-prog-discuss] Could automake-generated Makefiles required GNU make?, Nick Bowler, 2011/11/23
- Re: [gnu-prog-discuss] Could automake-generated Makefiles required GNU make?, Dave Hart, 2011/11/22
- Re: [gnu-prog-discuss] Could automake-generated Makefiles required GNU make?, Stefano Lattarini, 2011/11/22
- Re: [gnu-prog-discuss] Could automake-generated Makefiles required GNU make?, Paolo Bonzini, 2011/11/22
- Re: [gnu-prog-discuss] Could automake-generated Makefiles required GNU make?,
Stefano Lattarini <=
- Re: [gnu-prog-discuss] Could automake-generated Makefiles required GNU make?, Harlan Stenn, 2011/11/22
- Re: [gnu-prog-discuss] Could automake-generated Makefiles required GNU make?, Dave Hart, 2011/11/23
- Re: [gnu-prog-discuss] Could automake-generated Makefiles required GNU make?, Bob Friesenhahn, 2011/11/23
- Re: [gnu-prog-discuss] Could automake-generated Makefiles required GNU make?, Richard Stallman, 2011/11/24
- Re: [gnu-prog-discuss] Could automake-generated Makefiles required GNU make?, Paolo Bonzini, 2011/11/24
Re: Could automake-generated Makefiles required GNU make? (was: Re: [gnu-prog-discuss] portability), Nick Bowler, 2011/11/22