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

Previous Next

Full log

Message #58 received at 13349 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefano Lattarini <stefano.lattarini <at> gmail.com>
To: Bob Friesenhahn <bfriesen <at> simple.dallas.tx.us>
Cc: 13349 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Nick Bowler <nbowler <at> elliptictech.com>,
	"bug-autoconf <at> gnu.org" <bug-autoconf <at> gnu.org>,
	Eric Blake <eblake <at> redhat.com>, "automake-ng <at> gnu.org" <automake-ng <at> gnu.org>
Subject: Re: bug#13349: Re-execute with the "correct" make implementation
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2013 01:01:36 +0100

On 01/04/2013 12:35 AM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jan 2013, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> 
>> On 01/03/2013 11:53 PM, Nick Bowler wrote:
>>> On 2013-01-03 23:05 +0100, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>>>>
>>>>   TARGETS = all check clean distclean dist distcheck install uninstall
>>>>   .PHONY: $(TARGETS)
>>>>   $(TARGETS): ; @gmake $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) $@
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, this kind of wrapper doesn't work particularly well.  If
>>> the user runs something similar to:
>>>
>>>   make -j2 all install
>>>
>>> then the wrapper makefile will happily fork off two independent make
>>> instances in parallel: one running "gmake all" and one running "gmake
>>> install".  The result will probably be catastrophic.
>>>
>> Sigh, so very true.  Adding ".NOTPARALLEL:" could fix this issue though.
>> Assuming that it is portable enough ...
>>
>> At any case, the wrapper would be just a convenience for the most
>> common cases, like:
>>
>>  ./configure && make -j4 check && make install
>>
>> It doesn't have to work in all (or even most) scenarios.
> 
> This problem (use of wrong 'make') does not impact Automake-NG at
> all and it does not seem wise to create a complex solution for a
> problem which is seldom encountered and typically benign.
> 
I agree (but then, I'm biased, because I'd be the one who would have to
try to implement such a complex solution ;-)

But I think it's a fact that a simple "low-tech" solution like encouraging
developers who require GNU make (through Automake-Ng or otherwise) to use
the "GNUmakefile" name for their makefiles would probably give us 90% of
the benefits with 1% of the work.

Regards,
  Stefano

Previous Next

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