[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: |
Stefano Lattarini |
Subject: |
Re: Could automake-generated Makefiles required GNU make? (was: Re: [gnu-prog-discuss] portability) |
Date: |
Wed, 23 Nov 2011 10:23:20 +0100 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/2.6.30-2-686; KDE/4.6.5; i686; ; ) |
On Tuesday 22 November 2011, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Nov 2011, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>
> >> 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.
> >>
> > Honestly, my idea was to follow the "lead" of Quagmire here, and use
> > GNU make's own "extensibility" ($(eval), $(call), self-reflection
> > features like $(.VARIABLES), etc.) as a leverage. If we don't, we'd
> > better try to create a new-generation build system instead, as you've
> > proposed.
>
> I would like to use a build system which maintains a formal record of
> input files used, as well as their signatures, so that the software is
> properly built even if a file is set back in time (e.g. replaced with
> an older version). I would also like to use a build system which
> intelligently avoids unnecessary re-linking of objects and libraries
> but always re-links when needed. I would like to use a build system
> which can intelligently distribute builds across multiple machines if
> necessary. Can pure GNU make syntax be used to accomplish all that?
>
I honestly don't know. But I *guess* that, if it can, it would require
a lot of work, and probably a lot of hacks.
> > That sounds like a too grand, over-reaching plan to me; and its very
> > concept seems to be somewhat at odds with the Unix philosophy.
>
> How so? It is true that Kernighan & Pike recommend simplicity but
> they don't recommend inefficiency either. Today the GNU build system
> suffers from considerable inefficiency and a huge amount of
> complexity.
>
Sadly true. Starting to take advantage of GNU make might help in
mitigating this. Or maybe this is just wishful thinking; we won't
know until we try it out.
> If GNU is willing to require that a GNU build tool be
> installed in advance, then that build tool should be the best
> fit for the actual requirements as possible.
>
But GNU make is not a "random" GNU tool -- it's a mature, well-known,
alredy widespread tool, already used and required by non-trivial
build systems (e.g., Linux kernel's, and git's).
> In autotools, great effort is made to try to write shell, sed, awk,
> and m4 code which works portably across many implementations
>
[micro-nit: this is not the case anymore for the m4 code, which has
been since long requiring GNU m4]
> and requires a great many fork/exec calls and opening, reading, writing,
> and closing of files. If GNU is to require installing a build tool
> then that build tool should entirely eliminate any need to worry about
> syntax portability so that scripts can be written to do exactly what
> is required.
>
Again, I'm not opposed to the idea (which might have a large acceptance
after all, judging from CMake success). But I find it ortoghonal to
the proposal under discussion, which has a much narrower and less
"speculative" scope (note that "speculative" is to be intended in its
good sense here!).
Regards,
Stefano
- Re: Could automake-generated Makefiles required GNU make? (was: Re: [gnu-prog-discuss] portability), (continued)
- Re: Could automake-generated Makefiles required GNU make? (was: Re: [gnu-prog-discuss] portability), Bob Friesenhahn, 2011/11/22
- Re: Could automake-generated Makefiles required GNU make? (was: Re: [gnu-prog-discuss] portability), Stefano Lattarini, 2011/11/22
- Re: Could automake-generated Makefiles required GNU make? (was: Re: [gnu-prog-discuss] portability), Bob Friesenhahn, 2011/11/22
- Re: Could automake-generated Makefiles required GNU make? (was: Re: [gnu-prog-discuss] portability), Reuben Thomas, 2011/11/22
- Re: Could automake-generated Makefiles required GNU make?, Ludovic Courtès, 2011/11/23
- Re: Could automake-generated Makefiles required GNU make? (was: Re: [gnu-prog-discuss] portability), Stefano Lattarini, 2011/11/22
- Re: Could automake-generated Makefiles required GNU make? (was: Re: [gnu-prog-discuss] portability), Bob Friesenhahn, 2011/11/22
- Re: Could automake-generated Makefiles required GNU make? (was: Re: [gnu-prog-discuss] portability),
Stefano Lattarini <=
- Re: Could automake-generated Makefiles required GNU make? (was: Re: [gnu-prog-discuss] portability), Dave Hart, 2011/11/22
- Re: Could automake-generated Makefiles required GNU make? (was: Re: [gnu-prog-discuss] portability), Stefano Lattarini, 2011/11/23
- Re: Could automake-generated Makefiles required GNU make? (was: Re: [gnu-prog-discuss] portability), Richard Stallman, 2011/11/23
Re: Could automake-generated Makefiles required GNU make?, Warren Young, 2011/11/22
Re: Could automake-generated Makefiles required GNU make?, Ludovic Courtès, 2011/11/22
Re: Could automake-generated Makefiles required GNU make? (was: Re: [gnu-prog-discuss] portability), Richard Stallman, 2011/11/22