This is the mail archive of the
automake@gnu.org
mailing list for the automake project.
Re: automake -vs- huge projects
- From: "Paul D. Smith" <psmith at gnu dot org>
- To: Bob Friesenhahn <bfriesen at simple dot dallas dot tx dot us>
- Cc: Ralf Corsepius <corsepiu at faw dot uni-ulm dot de>, Lars Hecking <lhecking at nmrc dot ie>,Automake List <automake at gnu dot org>
- Date: 18 Dec 2003 13:26:02 -0500
- Subject: Re: automake -vs- huge projects
- Organization: GNU's Not Unix!
- References: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0312180903310.781-100000@scooby.simplesystems.org>
- Reply-to: psmith at gnu dot org
%% Bob Friesenhahn <bfriesen@simple.dallas.tx.us> writes:
>> So, IMO, for being useful, you'd either have to extend make to accept
>> the *.am-syntax or to reimplement make.
bf> Exactly. The binary 'automake' would be a "plain make" which also
bf> understands Automake syntax.
bf> If a non-standard tool is required to be on the user's system in order
bf> to build software, then it might as well be a tool that does
bf> everything. :-)
If you're willing to require GNU make then I'm quite confidant you could
write automake as nothing more than a suite of GNU make macros and
functions.
I doubt there would be any need for code changes to GNU make at all.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul D. Smith <psmith@gnu.org> Find some GNU make tips at:
http://www.gnu.org http://make.paulandlesley.org
"Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist