On 08/11/2012 01:27 AM, David Boyce wrote: > On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Stefano Lattarini > <stefano.lattar...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I have no answer for that, lacking any knowledge about GNU make >> internals; I guess the make developers here will be in a better >> position to answer my question. > > Yes, and I hope you get your feature. But consider that auto-tools are > traditionally targeted at the lowest common denominator. You've made > an explicit exception for Automake-NG that it will require GNU make, > which is reasonable. But do you really want to require a > not-yet-even-released version? > No. But the nice thing is that we can support 3.81 and later if we accept "graceful degradation": that is, make versions <= 3.82 will print an "override" warnings unconditionally (annoying, but bearable), while versions >= 3.83 will respect explicit user overrides, without any spurious/redundant diagnostic. And the more the time passes, the more the situation will improve (since more and more people will be using 3.83 or later in the future).
> That might not become generally > available for a decade or so, depending how portable you want to be. > It seems to me that targeting 3.81 or so would be better. IMHO. > That is currently our own target, yes (but I'm ready to just assume make 3.82 or later if the first stable Automake-NG version will be more than eight months from now). The argument about "graceful degradation" given above shows that is not a problem in practice. Thanks, Stefano _______________________________________________ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
