GNU bug report logs - #13349
Could we just assume support for make recursive variable expansion unconditionally?

Previous Next

Full log

Message #28 received at 13349 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefano Lattarini <stefano.lattarini <at> gmail.com>
To: Eric Blake <eblake <at> redhat.com>
Cc: 13349 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, "bug-autoconf <at> gnu.org" <bug-autoconf <at> gnu.org>,
	Bob Friesenhahn <bfriesen <at> simple.dallas.tx.us>
Subject: Re: bug#13349: [IMPORTANT] Could we just assuming support for make
	recursive variable expansion unconditionally?
Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2013 22:14:28 +0100

Hi Eric.

On 01/03/2013 09:40 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> [adding bug-autoconf, as owner of the source that becomes the generic
> GNU INSTALL file]
> 
> On 01/03/2013 01:33 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
>> On Thu, 3 Jan 2013, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It is a problem that MAKE is not mentioned in the standard
>>>> GNU INSTALL file, or in Automake's own INSTALL file.
>>>>
>>> The latter is not surprising, since Automake's INSTALL file is
>>> merely a copy of the generic GNU one.
>>>
>>>> If this variable was never mentioned by any instructional text,
>>>> users can't be expected to ever use it.
>>>>
>>> This makes sense?  Care to attempt a patch?  I'm not going to
>>> do it myself, I must admit.
>>
>> If Automake-dependent packages are dependent on MAKE, then it seems that
>> mention of MAKE should be added to the standard GNU INSTALL file (not
>> just Automake's copy).
>>
>> Previous to use by Automake in configure scripts, MAKE was an
>> environment variable used for internal communication from a parent make
>> process to a subordinate make process and set by make itself.
> 
> So what's the verdict - do we (want to) support the user overriding
> MAKE, and therefore document that in INSTALL?
>
Indeed, we should warn the user that if he configures an Autotools-based
package with MAKE set in the environment (or passed on the command line),
that he must use that same $MAKE to build the package; if this doesn't
happen, semi-random (albeit unlikely) failures can crop up.

> For that matter, should
> autoconf (and/or automake) mark MAKE as a precious variable, so that it
> gets listed in './configure --help', and so 'MAKE=gmake ./configure' has
> the same results as './configure MAKE=gmake'?
> 
Yeah, probably AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE should enhance the configure help message
to report the "quirky" role of $MAKE (patches welcome).  As for $MAKE
becoming a precious variable, it cannot certainly hurt, but is not truly
relevant either, since the user still has to invoke $MAKE himself, and
configure cannot help him there.

Regards,
  Stefano

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.