Re: [gnu-prog-discuss] Automake dist reproducibility

Pádraig Brady skribis: > On 22/12/15 17:00, Mike Gerwitz wrote: >> There is ongoing discussion about reproducible builds within GNU. I'm >> having trouble figuring out the best approach for deterministic >> distribution archives using Automake. > > I've not thought much about this, but I'm > won

Re: Could automake-generated Makefiles required GNU make?

Hi Stefano, Stefano Lattarini skribis: > On Tuesday 22 November 2011, Ludovic Courtès wrote: [...] >> It seems to me that this proposal would fill a niche between current >> Automake and Quagmire. >> >> IMO that niche may be small. One of Automake’s strengths is

Re: Could automake-generated Makefiles required GNU make?

Hi, Reuben Thomas skribis: > Or you could use Lua (www.lua.org) Or even GNU Guile: - embedded in GNU Make: . - on its own: . Thanks, Ludo’.

Re: Could automake-generated Makefiles required GNU make?

Hi Stefano, Stefano Lattarini skribis: > Here is my tentative plan to act on the proposal: > > 1. We start requiring GNU make in an "experimental" automake 2.0 > development line (which might, and will, break whathever > backward-compatibility gets in its way). > 2. Concurrently, w

Re: easier nonrecursive makefiles

Hi! Ralf Wildenhues writes: > Hmm, or do both: > foo_SOURCES += %ADDPREFIX%(%AM_PREFIX%, > file1.c file2.c ...) > > in sub/fragment.am, and with > include $(srcdir)/sub/fragment.am > > would expand (at automake run time) to > foo_SOURCES += sub/file1.c sub/file