The obvious end-point of #2 is to add a make-4.3.tar.gz file to future make 
packages and modify to unpack and use it. This might involve renaming 
the "inner" script to "" or similar.

But I also have the same question: what are the real-world cases where 
is needed?

> On Jun 26, 2022, at 10:44 AM, Philip Guenther <> wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 25, 2022 at 12:48 PM Paul Smith <> wrote:
>> I'm trying to decide what the future is for GNU make's ""
>> bootstrapping script. As you may recall, this script is provided to
>> allow GNU make to build on systems which don't already have an instance
>> of make installed. Its goal is to build the first make binary, without
>> of course all the fancy parts of avoiding rebuilds, generating
>> dependency files, etc.
> Can anyone contribute information about actual cases where was used?
> I've been using GNU make since 1992 or so, on only 9 or so different  UNIX 
> platforms, but they all had _some_ form of make available, however crippled, 
> that was sufficient to bootstrap GNU make.  So, I've avoided being its target 
> audience.  Who has been and can they speak to what they would do without it?  
> "I have a native compiler, but not make" is kinda a weird place to be; those 
> bootstrapping a new OS typically cross-compile the entire toolchain until 
> they can self-host: make is just another small divot in that bumpy road and 
> using when they still have to cross-compile the rest of the 
> toolchain doesn't actually help.
>> This leaves me with two options:
>>    1. Stop using gnulib, or at least sharply limit the modules we will
>>       include to those with trivial-enough configurations.
>>    2. Abandon the script and require an existing make program
>>       in order to build a new version of GNU make.
> Lacking a description of a case in the past where was actually the 
> only sane option, I would go with #2.
> Philip Guenther

Reply via email to