[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Removal of INCLUDES in favour of AM_CPPFLAGS

From: Stefano Lattarini
Subject: Re: Removal of INCLUDES in favour of AM_CPPFLAGS
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2013 10:35:55 +0100

[+cc automake-ng]

On 02/01/2013 09:45 AM, Peter Rosin wrote:
> Hi!
> From NEWS in the master branch:
>   - Support for the long-obsolete $(INCLUDES) variable has
>     been finally removed, in favour of the modern equivalent
>     $(AM_CPPFLAGS).
> Why is this removal important? It forces changes to a hundred
> (or so) Makefiles in *one* project I'm involved with. The fact
> that AM_CPPFLAGS is AC_SUBSTed by the project and used mostly
> for "global" flags and INCLUDES mostly for "local" stuff makes
> for a pretty useful separation. But in quite a few of those
> Makefiles, AM_CPPFLAGS (as AC_SUBSTed by configure) is augmented
> via "AM_CPPFLAGS +=" constructs. I'm not at all confident that
> I will be able to convert all of these uses without errors due
> to switched include ordering or omissions or whatever.
Actually, while recently re-reading some of the "aggressive" changes
of last, I have come to realize the same thing.  Since the removal
of INCLUDES is only implemented in master, I saw no hurry in
reverting it though; but reconsidering it was on the radar.  Bottom
line: a patch in that direction would be welcome, especially if its
commit message condenses the rationales you have given here.

> [SNIP] good rationales

> Also, this quote from commit message removing INCLUDES support:
>       "So, by removing it in Automake 1.14, we will simplify
>       the transition path for people that want to switch to
>       Automake-NG."
> is just brain-damage and completely ass-backwards, if you ask me.
> Damnit, if there is a goal to make it easy to switch, that should
> be the sole responsibility of Automake-NG. Especially for trivial
> stuff like this. Period.
I'm not happy to say this, but I must admit I agree with you now.

This wrong approach is probably the result of me trying to keep a foot
in both camps -- that is, maintaining mainline Automake while trying
to encourage a switch to Automake-NG in the long term.  Probably not a
good move, for any of those projects.

I should at this point decide whether just devote my "Automake time"
to mainline Automake (which amounts at letting Automake-NG die,
basically) or to Automake-NG (after tying some loose ends in the
mainline Automake code base, of course).

So, is anyone using or playing with Automake-NG, or at least
contemplating the idea to do so in the short term?  Or should
we just let the project die?

> [SNIP]


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]