in Makefile.am.
While I don't dispute that, I do think that requiring GNU make is a
fairly low barrier in way of prerequisites. GNU make is small, highly
portable and easily installed. If Automake were only started now, I
think requiring GNU make would be a prudent design decision.
The current Automake
that individual projects also try to avoid
GNU make syntax in Makefile.am.
While I don't dispute that, I do think that requiring GNU make is a
fairly low barrier in way of prerequisites. GNU make is small, highly
portable and easily installed. If Automake were only started now, I
think
Ralf == Ralf Wildenhues ralf.wildenh...@gmx.de writes:
Ralf If Automake were only started now, I think requiring GNU make
Ralf would be a prudent design decision.
Yeah. Portability looked a lot more important back then. Nowadays I
think assuming GNU make is completely reasonable. You can
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010, Tom Tromey wrote:
Ralf == Ralf Wildenhues ralf.wildenh...@gmx.de writes:
Ralf If Automake were only started now, I think requiring GNU make
Ralf would be a prudent design decision.
Yeah. Portability looked a lot more important back then. Nowadays I
think assuming GNU
I for one would be glad if automake required GNU make, since it
could make use of a lot of useful features which currently aren't
allowed. Similar to autoconf not requiring a POSIX shell, depite
the fact that non-POSIX shells are so far obsolete they are
irrelevant.
Are there any tools to
Hi Tom,
* Tom Tromey wrote on Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:21:19AM CEST:
The make part of the build parallelizes well, but the configure part
does not.
Yet.
I think that is the big problem today. It is particularly
noticeable in big trees like gcc or gdb.
Both of whose build systems could use
