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

[Dave Hart]

On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 14:39, Warren Young <address@hidden> wrote:
> 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.

It's unclear whether Autoconf + Automire will be able to detect and
use GNU make which is installed but is not named 'make'.  As I said,
the basic tarball user's build instructions are "configure && make".
I realize there can be automation to use, for example, gmake via
Makefile vs. Makefile.gnu, and if that sort of change is in place
before the first requirement for GNU make, the pain is reduced.  In
the realm of people building NTP from source, far more than 1 in
100,000 seem to be using systems where 'make' is available but is not
GNU make.  Even if we define the requirement as $(MAKE-make) is GNU
make or gmake is GNU make, more than 1 in 100,000 that I've dealt with
using NTP tarballs are using systems where GNU is not built-in, and
would be negatively impacted by the additional prerequisite required
to build NTP.

However, as long as this experimentation with requiring GNU make is
done in an Automire fork and not Automake, I have no qualms greater
than concern for maintainer attention to Automake fading over time in
favor of Automire.

Cheers,
Dave Hart