Ben: at this point I think it's pretty crazy not to just target GNU Make.
You can see from Jed's comments that that is exactly what PETSc is doing as
well (which effectively means we are too). We can pick a reasonable
minimum version and just require it.
The world moves on. We moved to C++11 (and hopefully 14 soon). We've
moved from MPI-1 to MPI-2 to MPI-3. There is no reason why we can't just
test for GNU Make in configure and say that we require it at this point.
Also: remember that most of our peers are requiring specific versions of
CMake for building - and they are doing ok (it's a pain - but it's not the
end of the world). Requiring GNU Make isn't that big of a deal.
Seriously guys: I still don't understand all the negativity here. If you
guys are THAT unwilling to change then we have bigger problems.
This is not new - these have been complaints from day-1 that were ignored
when you switched out something that in our (especially my) eyes "just
worked". You ignored my complaints then (and through the years) to get a
few features that you use - that to this day I have literally never used
(and aren't necessary for one of the largest user-bases that use libMesh:
MOOSE users) - yet you have no capability for empathy my direction when I
finally say enough is enough and we need to find a new solution that works
better for everyone (and I have even volunteered to develop it).
Instead of being like: "yeah - you're right, I can see that while I like
some of the things we got with the new system it does kinda blow for some
workflows... what are your ideas?" you guys are like "Why do you not bow
before the almighty Automake! It is pure GOD and shall not be
questioned!". It's sick - and annoying. We're software developers: we
highlight issues and make things better. We should be supportive when
people want to improve things.
Anyway: I'm honestly done with this conversation. I have real work to do -
no reason to argue with negative brick walls. The next time you hear from
me on this topic it will be because I have a Make based system that doesn't
suck in a fork. If you don't want to merge it that's fine - we'll deal
with it then. I wish I could have developed this _with_ you guys... but
you lost out on that.
Derek
On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 11:05 AM Kirk, Benjamin (JSC-EG311) <
benjamin.k...@nasa.gov> wrote:
>
> On Aug 31, 2018, at 9:42 AM, Paul T. Bauman <ptbau...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Why is everyone so afraid of actually writing Make? I don't get it.
>>
>
> No one in this thread is afraid of writing make.
>
>
> wildcards in GNU make as required by that blob are explicitly not allowed
> within automake because of the goal of supporting all makes. So that is
> part of the issue, it is possible to write make but the targets must be
> specified.
>
> A work around though could be a local hook, that rather than using
> wildcards within make instead calls a shell script that does effectively
> the same thing,
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Libmesh-devel mailing list
Libmesh-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libmesh-devel
