From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg Troxel Subject: Re: makefile regression Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 08:12:14 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87aa0yi0er.fsf@Rainer.invalid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:39102) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SXWtu-0006Lw-6X for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 24 May 2012 08:12:24 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SXWts-0005AP-7g for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 24 May 2012 08:12:17 -0400 Received: from fnord.ir.bbn.com ([192.1.100.210]:53819) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SXWts-00059t-3s for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 24 May 2012 08:12:16 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87aa0yi0er.fsf@Rainer.invalid> (Achim Gratz's message of "Thu, 24 May 2012 08:00:12 +0200") List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Achim Gratz Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain I don't really object to using GNU make; enough things require it (probably emacs does too) that it's already installed. It's more that "anyone using a makefile will use gnu make" isn't a valid assumption, especially when the documentation says "type make". At the very start of my Makefile branch I stated that I will use GNU make since the old make file already used some GNU make features. This will be documented when it gets released. Using GNU make features helped to keep things a bit more maintenance friendly, but before other things, I have a reliable documentation of what it is supposed to do and can be reasonably sure that it actually does that across a range of platforms. It seems easy enough to document the requirement in README in the sources, where programs traditonally list their prerequisites; I looked there and in the usual other files and found no such requirement explained. I don't understand why it makes sense to defer adjusting the source to explain what's needed until its tagged, but maybe you don't mean that. Separately, that would be a good place to explain what version of emacs are supported. I am running 24 and thus not running into too new/old, but I now realize that's an obvious question the answer to which my attempt to find out if the requirement to use GNU Make was documented should have led me across. > This seems unfortunate; I don't understand why building org has to be so > complicated. If it is complicated, it seems best to use > autoconf/automake, which already have worked out most of the portability > issues. Please, let's not go there. I will implement a facility to build an in-place orgmode without any support from make at all. It appears that this would be enough for your use-case, but I'd still still suggest to use GNU make. I did use GNU make. My reaction was not to GNU make, but that it wasn't obvious in a minute or two what all the makefile complexity was for. > (I haven't seen any discussion, but I confess to not quite keeping up > with with emacs-orgmode traffic.) It seems a better idea to stay on maint rather than on master then. By not quite keeping up I mean that I scan all the subject lines and read some things. Almost all if not all of my problems on master over the last few years have been running into real bugs. Thanks, Greg --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (NetBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAk++JZ4ACgkQ+vesoDJhHiXwUwCgoahPLSm8JpltP/G+F2lxUaIa e1AAoIDEmF7jadYbgnBt3O1/z1fd5o0B =eHmO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--