Re: [gnu-prog-discuss] Could automake-generated Makefiles required GNU make?

[Warren Young]

On 11/22/2011 8:03 PM, Dave Hart wrote:
> If Autotools are primarily intended to support those using GNU/Linux
> systems and portability is not a goal, your argument that GNU has won
> and BSD compatibility of free software is no longer worthwhile makes
> sense.

Where did I say automake 2 = Linux-only?

What I said is that if this next-generation version of automake were to 
require GNU make, it would probably still support 99.999% of all hosts 
it currently targets out of the box, and could pick up the last 0.001% 
with a widely available prerequisite install.

The 99.999% means Linux, OS X, Cygwin, and MinGW, at least, plus those 
systems where GNU make wasn't the default but is installed anyway for 
some other reason.

For those that think it's a huge problem for an autotools based package 
to have *any* build prerequisites, I used Unices in the bad old days 
where sed and awk were optional installs, and that didn't stall 
autotools' deployment back then, when it was more vulnerable.  A 
requirement to install GNU make to build a Makefile generated via 
automake 2 won't kill the autotools now.

My point is not to argue in favor of GNU vs BSD or anything else 
religious like that.  I am simply pointing out that a requirement for 
GNU make is scarcely more stringent these days than requiring a vaguely 
POSIX compatible shell.

> As Ralf suggests, Automake has made it this far without requiring more
> than portable make.

Yes, and we've bought that last 0.001% of compatibility with bigger, 
slower, and harder to read generated Makefiles and configure scripts. 
TANSTAAFL.  If the price to lose some bloat, gain some speed, and 
increase the clarity of these files is that I have to install GNU make 
on the 0.001% of systems where it isn't installed already, that seems a 
fair trade.