automake
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [gnu-prog-discuss] Could automake-generated Makefiles required GNU m


From: Stefano Lattarini
Subject: Re: [gnu-prog-discuss] Could automake-generated Makefiles required GNU make?
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 16:35:59 +0100
User-agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/2.6.30-2-686; KDE/4.6.5; i686; ; )

On Tuesday 22 November 2011, Dave Hart wrote:
> At the risk of repeating myself from the last time this question came
> up, let me selfishly say as a NTP maintainer that I do not look
> forward to NTP configure failing with a message indicating GNU make is
> required and could not be located.  I have no appreciation for how
> much simpler and easier to maintain Automake might become with a shift
> from targetting portable make to requiring GNU make.  I've never
> maintained Makefile or Makefile.am files in a GNU-make-only project.
> I do find it is sometimes easier to track down problems affecting both
> GNU make and more traditional implementations using a traditional make
> as the verbose debug output of GNU make is so much longer due to more
> implicit rules.
> 
> It would be my inclination to stay with older Automake as long as
> feasible if newer Automake drops support for traditional make.
>
That should be feasible, since we should continue to support "classical
automake" for few years at least.  Also, after these years, two scenarios
are possible:

 1. "Automake 2" turns out to be a failure, it gets abandoned, and
    "Automake 1" becomes again the center of all our developement
    efforts.  No problem for you, since you're still using this older
    automake.

 2. "Automake 2" is a success, and we drop support for Automake 1.  At
    this point, it shouldn't be too big a pain for you to convert to the
    new automake (a good documentation about incompatibilities between,
    and/or transition from, automake 1 and 2 should exist at this point).
    Also, assuming that many other packages are using automake 2 by now,
    and thus requiring GNU make, it should be much more acceptable for
    the NTP build system to do the same.

> Harlan Stenn, who initially converted the NTP code to use Autoconf and
> Automake, likely has a different perspective which might well matter
> more than mine.
>
I think it would be premature to start discussing now about the
possibility of such a transition to the "new automake".  Let's wait
at least until automake 2 isn't just wishful-thinking vaporware :-)

Regards,
  Stefano



reply via email to

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