Re: Unportable makefile example in "Makefile Convention" section

[Kang-Che Sung]

On Mon, May 6, 2024 at 11:55 PM Paul Smith <psmith@gnu.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2024-05-06 at 23:27 +0800, Kang-Che Sung wrote:
> > So why is `$<` even suggested here in the example when it's
> > unportable?
>
> It's not the goal, or desire, of the GNU Make manual to use only
> portable constructs in its examples.  The GNU Make manual exists to
> document using GNU Make and all its examples should work correctly with
> GNU Make.
>

Sorry, but I think you missed this: I was referring to the GNU Coding
Standard manual, not GNU Make manual.

Specifically this page:
https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/Makefile-Basics.html

I think the GNU Coding Standard uses whatever Automake supports in the
makefiles, so a package does not require GNU Make as a necessity to
build. (Some packages are exceptions, I know.) It might not be just
POSIX, but if the minimum bar isn't Automake, then it make no sense to
develop the Automake package in the first place.

> In some places in the GNU Make manual we do point out specific things
> which may be non-portable, but that's just an informational courtesy
> for the reader.  Anyone who wants to actually write portable makefiles
> and not use any non-portable features, would be better off following a
> different document such as the POSIX specification for make, than using
> the GNU Make manual.
>