Re: automake -vs- huge projects

[Paul D. Smith]

%% Bob Friesenhahn <address@hidden> writes:

  >> So, IMO, for being useful, you'd either have to extend make to accept
  >> the *.am-syntax or to reimplement make.

  bf> Exactly.  The binary 'automake' would be a "plain make" which also
  bf> understands Automake syntax.

  bf> If a non-standard tool is required to be on the user's system in order
  bf> to build software, then it might as well be a tool that does
  bf> everything. :-)

If you're willing to require GNU make then I'm quite confidant you could
write automake as nothing more than a suite of GNU make macros and
functions.

I doubt there would be any need for code changes to GNU make at all.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Paul D. Smith <address@hidden>          Find some GNU make tips at:
 http://www.gnu.org                      http://make.paulandlesley.org
 "Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist