GNU make or portable make? (was: Makefile to Makefile.am)

2010-08-17 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
* Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 05:06:40PM CEST: If depending on GNU make was considered ok, then Automake would have been developed quite differently than it is. Given current Automake objectives, it is wise that individual projects also try to avoid GNU make syntax in

Re: GNU make or portable make? (was: Makefile to Makefile.am)

2010-08-17 Thread Roger Leigh
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 10:05:31PM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: * Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 05:06:40PM CEST: If depending on GNU make was considered ok, then Automake would have been developed quite differently than it is. Given current Automake objectives, it is wise

Re: GNU make or portable make? (was: Makefile to Makefile.am)

2010-08-17 Thread Robert J. Hansen
I for one would be glad if automake required GNU make, since it could make use of a lot of useful features which currently aren't allowed. Similar to autoconf not requiring a POSIX shell, depite the fact that non-POSIX shells are so far obsolete they are irrelevant. Are there any tools to