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

[Stefano Lattarini]

On Thursday 13 January 2011, Steffen Dettmer wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 10:36 PM, <address@hidden> wrote:
> >  - I think that keeping configuration and build steps separated is
> >   a very good idea.
> 
> Do you mean this is a good idea in the context of todays systems
> - or -
> Do you mean this is good idea in general and could be a design
> criteria for future build environments?
>
The second one.  But TBH I don't have any objective justification
for this, only "gut feelings".  So I should better have said:

 ``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.

> I think I agree to the first (mostly because I assume if the
> autotools developers and experts separate those steps, they do it
> for a good reason), but I don't understand my this could be a
> requirement in future systems.
> 
> Wouldn't it be great to type "make" which automatically knows by
> depedencies that some configuration rules have to be executed
> (i.e. to determine facts about the environment if they are not
> available in form of small .h files or alike)?
>
Yes, but then, this could be implemented by having the build system
call the configuration system properly, no?  More or less like is
done by automake-generated rebuild rules, just "on steroid" I guess.

> If, for example, Makefiles would have rules to check for the
> libraries as soon as needed etc, wouldn't this be good?
> Tests that are not needed for the configuration to be built
> would not even be executed (saving time).
>
What do you mean exactly by this?  I might appear dumb, but
I'm having some difficulties in following you here.

> What important points did I miss in my consideration?
> 
> oki,
> 
> Steffen
> 

Regards,
  Stefano