On 01/04/2013 12:35 AM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > On Fri, 4 Jan 2013, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > >> On 01/03/2013 11:53 PM, Nick Bowler wrote: >>> On 2013-01-03 23:05 +0100, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >>>> >>>> TARGETS = all check clean distclean dist distcheck install uninstall >>>> .PHONY: $(TARGETS) >>>> $(TARGETS): ; @gmake $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) $@ >>> >>> Unfortunately, this kind of wrapper doesn't work particularly well. If >>> the user runs something similar to: >>> >>> make -j2 all install >>> >>> then the wrapper makefile will happily fork off two independent make >>> instances in parallel: one running "gmake all" and one running "gmake >>> install". The result will probably be catastrophic. >>> >> Sigh, so very true. Adding ".NOTPARALLEL:" could fix this issue though. >> Assuming that it is portable enough ... >> >> At any case, the wrapper would be just a convenience for the most >> common cases, like: >> >> ./configure && make -j4 check && make install >> >> It doesn't have to work in all (or even most) scenarios. > > This problem (use of wrong 'make') does not impact Automake-NG at > all and it does not seem wise to create a complex solution for a > problem which is seldom encountered and typically benign. > I agree (but then, I'm biased, because I'd be the one who would have to try to implement such a complex solution ;-)
But I think it's a fact that a simple "low-tech" solution like encouraging developers who require GNU make (through Automake-Ng or otherwise) to use the "GNUmakefile" name for their makefiles would probably give us 90% of the benefits with 1% of the work. Regards, Stefano
