Re: Could automake-generated Makefiles required GNU make?

[Stefano Lattarini]

On Tuesday 22 November 2011, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Hi Stefano,
>
Hi Ludo.

> Stefano Lattarini <address@hidden> skribis:
> 
> > Here is my tentative plan to act on the proposal:
> >
> >   1. We start requiring GNU make in an "experimental" automake 2.0
> >      development line (which might, and will, break whathever
> >      backward-compatibility gets in its way).
> >   2. Concurrently, we continue to support the more portable (and
> >      tested, and used-in-the-real-world) 1.x line, with bugfixes
> >      at least (and probably also with addition of new not-too-big
> >      features).
> 
> It seems to me that this proposal would fill a niche between current
> Automake and Quagmire.
> 
> IMO that niche may be small.  One of Automake’s strengths is to support
> multiple make implementations.  If you’re going to require GNU make, why
> not take Quagmire’s approach, so you really get to benefit more from
> GNU make features?
> 
Basically, because I want something that work *from day zero*.  IMHO that
is the only way the "new automake" can end up competing with that mature
and powerful beast that is the current automake.  A more in-depth and
reasoned explanation can be found here:
  <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake/2011-01/msg00077.html>
(Note however that I've somewhat changed my mind about Quagmire being
wrong in planning to subsume the libtool features as well, eventually.
But that doesn't change my main points).

Regards,
  Stefano