[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: bug#13349: [IMPORTANT] Could we just assuming support for make recur

From: Eric Blake
Subject: Re: bug#13349: [IMPORTANT] Could we just assuming support for make recursive variable expansion unconditionally?
Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2013 13:40:55 -0700
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0

[adding bug-autoconf, as owner of the source that becomes the generic

On 01/03/2013 01:33 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Jan 2013, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>>> It is a problem that MAKE is not mentioned in the standard
>>> GNU INSTALL file, or in Automake's own INSTALL file.
>> The latter is not surprising, since Automake's INSTALL file is
>> merely a copy of the generic GNU one.
>>> If this variable was never mentioned by any instructional text,
>>> users can't be expected to ever use it.
>> This makes sense?  Care to attempt a patch?  I'm not going to
>> do it myself, I must admit.
> If Automake-dependent packages are dependent on MAKE, then it seems that
> mention of MAKE should be added to the standard GNU INSTALL file (not
> just Automake's copy).
> Previous to use by Automake in configure scripts, MAKE was an
> environment variable used for internal communication from a parent make
> process to a subordinate make process and set by make itself.

So what's the verdict - do we (want to) support the user overriding
MAKE, and therefore document that in INSTALL?  For that matter, should
autoconf (and/or automake) mark MAKE as a precious variable, so that it
gets listed in './configure --help', and so 'MAKE=gmake ./configure' has
the same results as './configure MAKE=gmake'?

Eric Blake   eblake redhat com    +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

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