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

[Bob Friesenhahn]

On Tue, 22 Nov 2011, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> > Or simpler: So far, automake has not been using gmake, so why should it
> > now start doing so?
> Because IMHO the cost/benefit ratio of using portable make only has become
> higher and higer -- not because the cost of writing portable Makefiles has
> increased, rather because the the benefits of doing so have stadily
> decreased over time, thanks to the "rise" of GNU/Linux and, considerably
> less, of Cygwin (rise which has had as a consequence that fact that their
> versions of the standard tools have become more widespread and easily
> available).

Empires come and go.  Regardless, there is no reason for other 
perfectly good systems to throw in the towel just yet.

The problem that Automake still needs to solve is enable the easy 
construction of reliable build systems for large projects with many 
build products and source files occupying a large directory tree. 
Relying on GNU make may make accomplishing this easier, but it does 
not solve the Talking Heads "How Did I Get Here" problem we are in 
now.  The GNU build system has ended up where it is today based on 
refinements to approaches and build tools invented in the late '70s 
and early '80s.  Even autoconf dates from the early '90s.

A build system which requires one or more processes to entirely 
orchestrate the build order and rules based on mere file existence and 
simple timestamps is fundamentally broken.  Currently observed 
problems will only grow worse.

Bob
--
Bob Friesenhahn
address@hidden, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
GraphicsMagick Maintainer,    http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/