[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#13349: Re-execute with the "correct" make implementation
From: |
Nick Bowler |
Subject: |
bug#13349: Re-execute with the "correct" make implementation |
Date: |
Thu, 3 Jan 2013 17:53:02 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On 2013-01-03 23:05 +0100, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> On 01/03/2013 10:34 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
[...]
> > Hmm, that goes back to one of the questions we asked about Automake-NG -
> > is it possible to write a generic makefile that merely forwards all
> > requests to gmake, and where all of the real magic of Automake-NG is in
> > GNUMakefile, so that even if the user types 'make all' they still end up
> > running 'gmake all' under the hood?
> >
> For usual targets, that is easy. I don't even think that must be done
> at Automake-NG level; one can simply use 'GNUmakefile.am' as Automake-NG
> input file (instead of the usual 'Makefile.am'), add 'GNUmakefile' to
> an AC_CONFIG_FILES invocation, and then hand-write a simple Makefile
> acting as a thin wrapper:
>
> 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.
Cheers,
--
Nick Bowler, Elliptic Technologies (http://www.elliptictech.com/)
- bug#13349: [IMPORTANT] Could we just assuming support for make recursive variable expansion unconditionally?, (continued)
- bug#13349: [IMPORTANT] Could we just assuming support for make recursive variable expansion unconditionally?, Stefano Lattarini, 2013/01/03
- bug#13349: [IMPORTANT] Could we just assuming support for make recursive variable expansion unconditionally?, Bob Friesenhahn, 2013/01/03
- bug#13349: [IMPORTANT] Could we just assuming support for make recursive variable expansion unconditionally?, Stefano Lattarini, 2013/01/03
- bug#13349: [IMPORTANT] Could we just assuming support for make recursive variable expansion unconditionally?, Bob Friesenhahn, 2013/01/03
- bug#13349: [IMPORTANT] Could we just assuming support for make recursive variable expansion unconditionally?, Eric Blake, 2013/01/03
- bug#13349: [IMPORTANT] Could we just assuming support for make recursive variable expansion unconditionally?, Stefano Lattarini, 2013/01/03
- bug#13349: [IMPORTANT] Could we just assuming support for make recursive variable expansion unconditionally?, Eric Blake, 2013/01/03
- bug#13349: Re-execute with the "correct" make implementation, Stefano Lattarini, 2013/01/03
- bug#13349: Re-execute with the "correct" make implementation, Eric Blake, 2013/01/03
- bug#13349: Re-execute with the "correct" make implementation, Stefano Lattarini, 2013/01/03
- bug#13349: Re-execute with the "correct" make implementation,
Nick Bowler <=
- bug#13349: Re-execute with the "correct" make implementation, Stefano Lattarini, 2013/01/03
- bug#13349: Re-execute with the "correct" make implementation, Bob Friesenhahn, 2013/01/03
- bug#13349: Re-execute with the "correct" make implementation, Stefano Lattarini, 2013/01/03
- bug#13349: Re-execute with the "correct" make implementation, Eric Blake, 2013/01/03
- bug#13349: Re-execute with the "correct" make implementation, Stefano Lattarini, 2013/01/03
- bug#13349: Re-execute with the "correct" make implementation, Eric Blake, 2013/01/03
- bug#13349: Re-execute with the "correct" make implementation, Stefano Lattarini, 2013/01/03