require GNU make to build emacs?

require GNU make to build emacs?

[Dan Nicolaescu]

Hi,

Shouldn't we require GNU make to build emacs?  It is widely available,
and excellent too.  It works on all platforms we support.

Having a modern make should help simplify the makefiles and maybe the
whole build process.

GCC has required GNU make for 3-4 years without any problems.

Thanks

        --dan

Re: require GNU make to build emacs?

[Stefan Monnier]

> Shouldn't we require GNU make to build Emacs?  It is widely available,
> and excellent too.  It works on all platforms we support.

> Having a modern make should help simplify the makefiles and maybe the
> whole build process.

> GCC has required GNU make for 3-4 years without any problems.

I don't think we should worry about it now,


        Stefan

Re: require GNU make to build emacs?

[Dan Nicolaescu]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

  > > Shouldn't we require GNU make to build Emacs?  It is widely available,
  > > and excellent too.  It works on all platforms we support.
  > 
  > > Having a modern make should help simplify the makefiles and maybe the
  > > whole build process.
  > 
  > > GCC has required GNU make for 3-4 years without any problems.
  > 
  > I don't think we should worry about it now,

What you do mean by "now"?
Will "now" change? :-)

Re: require GNU make to build emacs?

[Stefan Monnier]

>> > Shouldn't we require GNU make to build Emacs?  It is widely available,
>> > and excellent too.  It works on all platforms we support.
>> 
>> > Having a modern make should help simplify the makefiles and maybe the
>> > whole build process.
>> 
>> > GCC has required GNU make for 3-4 years without any problems.
>> 
>> I don't think we should worry about it now,

> What you do mean by "now"?
> Will "now" change? :-)

Probably, but ... not now,


        Stefan

Re: require GNU make to build emacs?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Dan Nicolaescu <dann@ics.uci.edu>
> Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 15:44:43 -0800
> 
> Shouldn't we require GNU make to build emacs?

Requesting a specific flavor of Make is a limitation and a burden on
users who build Emacs, and as such, we shouldn't impose it without a
good reason, IMO.  Is there a good reason for that?

> Having a modern make should help simplify the makefiles and maybe the
> whole build process.

Is that the only reason, or are there real problems with non-GNU Make
in our build process?

> GCC has required GNU make for 3-4 years without any problems.

They require it for a good reason.  But their situation is different:
most users will not build a compiler, but Emacs is a different story.

Re: require GNU make to build emacs?

[Dan Nicolaescu]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

  > > From: Dan Nicolaescu <dann@ics.uci.edu>
  > > Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 15:44:43 -0800
  > > 
  > > Shouldn't we require GNU make to build emacs?
  > 
  > Requesting a specific flavor of Make is a limitation and a burden on
  > users who build Emacs, and as such, we shouldn't impose it without a
  > good reason, IMO.  Is there a good reason for that?

Not sure if we should be discussing this given that Stefan already said
"not now", but ... 
Yes, IMO there's a good reason.  Being able to use conditionals,
includes, and other advanced features should allow us to avoid using the
C preprocessor to create Makefiles, and to make the bootstrap a bit more
reliable (we have way too many parallel make failures and other
flakiness).


  > > Having a modern make should help simplify the makefiles and maybe the
  > > whole build process.
  > 
  > Is that the only reason, or are there real problems with non-GNU Make
  > in our build process?

The fact that we only use the most basic make features is a problem.

Re: require GNU make to build emacs?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Dan Nicolaescu <dann@ics.uci.edu>
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 21:22:41 -0800
> 
> Yes, IMO there's a good reason.  Being able to use conditionals,
> includes, and other advanced features should allow us to avoid using the
> C preprocessor to create Makefiles

The way to avoid using cpp is to autoconfiscate our configury, so that
the configure script produces src/Makefile from src/Makefile.in.  (Not
that I think this is such an urgent task, given that the current setup
works so well and that the rate of new OSes and/or changes in the
existing OSes is so low lately.)

> and to make the bootstrap a bit more reliable (we have way too many
> parallel make failures and other flakiness).

Failures with parallel builds are probably due to little use, not
non-GNU Make.  Most, if not all, of those I remember were fixed easily
by adding missing dependencies.  But if you have specific examples for
these problems, by all means post them.

>   > > Having a modern make should help simplify the makefiles and maybe the
>   > > whole build process.
>   > 
>   > Is that the only reason, or are there real problems with non-GNU Make
>   > in our build process?
> 
> The fact that we only use the most basic make features is a problem.

Again, specific problems, beyond those solved by autoconf, would be
appreciated.

Re: require GNU make to build emacs?

[Dan Nicolaescu]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

  > > From: Dan Nicolaescu <dann@ics.uci.edu>
  > > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
  > > Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 21:22:41 -0800
  > > 
  > > Yes, IMO there's a good reason.  Being able to use conditionals,
  > > includes, and other advanced features should allow us to avoid using the
  > > C preprocessor to create Makefiles

Does it make any sense to discuss this now? Doubtful... 

  > The way to avoid using cpp is to autoconfiscate our configury, so that
  > the configure script produces src/Makefile from src/Makefile.in.  (Not
  > that I think this is such an urgent task, given that the current setup
  > works so well and that the rate of new OSes and/or changes in the
  > existing OSes is so low lately.)

Or we could just split the s/* m/* files into C header files and real
makefiles. 
I would just mean change the syntax from C to make for the part that is
actually intended to be used in makefiles.  Of course the proof that
this is indeed possible is in the details, but it seems that there's a
good changes.

Re: require GNU make to build emacs?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Dan Nicolaescu <dann@ics.uci.edu>
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 17:09:40 -0800
> 
>   > The way to avoid using cpp is to autoconfiscate our configury, so that
>   > the configure script produces src/Makefile from src/Makefile.in.  (Not
>   > that I think this is such an urgent task, given that the current setup
>   > works so well and that the rate of new OSes and/or changes in the
>   > existing OSes is so low lately.)
> 
> Or we could just split the s/* m/* files into C header files and real
> makefiles. 

That'd defeat one of the benefits of autoconfiscation: avoid the need
to maintain the gazillion s/*.h and m/*.h files by hand.

Re: require GNU make to build emacs?

[Xavier Maillard]

   The fact that we only use the most basic make features is a problem.

Basic but portable which is really important in my opinion. Using
basic features ensures that GNU Emacs can be built on every
supported platforms.

	Xavier
-- 
http://www.gnu.org
http://www.april.org
http://www.lolica.org

Re: require GNU make to build emacs?

[Richard Stallman]

    Shouldn't we require GNU make to build emacs?

Before a drastic change like that, we certainly should ask the users
to say if it would be a problem.

Stefan and Yidong, if you would like to do this, please
talk with me about it.