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

[Stefano Lattarini]

On Wednesday 23 November 2011, Dave Hart wrote:
>
> [HUGE MEGA SNIP]
>
> I like RMS's idea of switching one or two GNU packages to require GNU
> make to test the waters.  Obviously, GNU make itself needs to require
> only portable make to enable bootstrapping.
>
If I'm not mistaken, GNU make doesn't even require any make program in
order to bootstrap -- it  comes with a shell script that can do the
initial build if no make program is found (as Paul Smith has pointed
out).

> I agree the experiment shouldn't be done first with Automake,
> as that would have implications for all packages uses Automake.
> Doing it with an Automake fork called Automire wouldn't be such
> a problem, but Stefano probably doesn't find forking appealing
> for a number of sound reasons.
>
In truth, given the feedback received, I think a fork would be not
only less controversial, but also much more appealing than a branch
in the automake repostory, which might cause automake and automire
to gets in each other's way.

> Thanks for the choice to support use of Automake by non-GPL packages,
> and for hearing the concerns of a maintainer of such a package.
> 
> Cheers,
> Dave Hart
> 

Thanks for the feedback,
   Stefano