Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

hmm, is the "tupfile" syntax really as horrible as it looks? [ from the "examples" page: : hello.c |> gcc -Wall -c hello.c -o hello.o |> hello.o ] -miles -- Ich bin ein Virus. Mach' mit und kopiere mich in Deine .signature.

hello kkkkkkkkkg

hello: I have good news for you. Last week I have Order china 18 Products Apple MC226LLA 17 MacBook Pro Notebook I completed bank transfer payments,I have received the product! w e b:gouoboo.com It's amazing The item is original, brand new and has high quality, but it's muc cheaper. I'm pleased t

Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

On Fri, 2011-01-14 at 19:57 +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 07:55:17PM CET: > > Where do these terms 'alpha' and 'beta' build system originate from? > > I've read them in > . > > No idea w

Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

* Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 07:55:17PM CET: > Where do these terms 'alpha' and 'beta' build system originate from? I've read them in . No idea whether they are standardized somehow or somewhere. Cheers, Ralf

Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

Ralf, Where do these terms 'alpha' and 'beta' build system originate from? Bob -- Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer,http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/

Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

Hi Bob, * Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 04:04:35PM CET: > In addition to the above, Automake should be supplying enough explicit rule > information (pertaining to the actual needs of the current project) that the > underlying build tool should not have to go off in the weeds and tr

Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

* Guido Draheim wrote on Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 08:55:20PM CET: > By the way, I would find it more interesting to see some > automake-replacement that allows GNU-make extensions and > compiles them down to standard make as far as possible... Generally, I wouldn't, as I don't like the idea of reimple

Re: make -j1 fails

* Pippijn van Steenhoven wrote on Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 09:38:36AM CET: > On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 07:22:20PM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > If the failure persists, please post short configure.ac and > > Makefile.am which expose the problem for you. You can start with > > what I show below, and a

Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

On Friday 14 January 2011, Steffen Dettmer wrote: > On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 8:39 PM, wrote: > > ``I truly dislike the idea of not keeping configuration and build > > steps separated.'' > > > > Maybe I'd just like a system that *allows* me to keep configuration > > and build steps clerarly disti

Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: (That, by the way, is what nobody ever tells you when they point you to the "Recursive Make Considered Harmful" paper: that walking the full dependency tree is more expensive than walking a factorized one. Sure, you need to keep the toplevel deps up t

Re: [CRAZY PROPOSAL] Automake should support only GNU make

On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 8:39 PM, wrote: >  ``I truly dislike the idea of not keeping configuration and build >   steps separated.'' > > Maybe I'd just like a system that *allows* me to keep configuration > and build steps clerarly distinct if I want to.  Yes, that would > be enough for me I guess.

Re: make -j1 fails

On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 07:22:20PM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > Thanks for the bug report. Which version of Automake are you using? > If older than v1.10b-62-g0e411a0, then please update to 1.11.1 and > retry. It may be possible that we overlooked one case in the > above-mentioned commit, but