On Mon, May 6, 2024 at 11:55 PM Paul Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, 2024-05-06 at 23:27 +0800, Kang-Che Sung wrote: > > So why is `$<` even suggested here in the example when it's > > unportable? > > It's not the goal, or desire, of the GNU Make manual to use only > portable constructs in its examples. The GNU Make manual exists to > document using GNU Make and all its examples should work correctly with > GNU Make. >
Sorry, but I think you missed this: I was referring to the GNU Coding Standard manual, not GNU Make manual. Specifically this page: https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/Makefile-Basics.html I think the GNU Coding Standard uses whatever Automake supports in the makefiles, so a package does not require GNU Make as a necessity to build. (Some packages are exceptions, I know.) It might not be just POSIX, but if the minimum bar isn't Automake, then it make no sense to develop the Automake package in the first place. > In some places in the GNU Make manual we do point out specific things > which may be non-portable, but that's just an informational courtesy > for the reader. Anyone who wants to actually write portable makefiles > and not use any non-portable features, would be better off following a > different document such as the POSIX specification for make, than using > the GNU Make manual. >
