Re: Goodbye to GNU make's "build.sh" ... ?

2022-06-25 Thread Sven C. Dack
Hello, developers causing a "Catch 22" paradox is not new. You want to avoid such software, or at least work around it with a big margin. Sharply limiting the use of gnulib here may not provide such a margin and cause repeated trouble in the future. Your condition of "to those with trivial-enough

Re: Goodbye to GNU make's "build.sh" ... ?

2022-06-25 Thread Eli Zaretskii
> From: Paul Smith > Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2022 17:47:47 -0400 > > I had a discussion about this with the Gnulib maintainers a while ago: > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2019-09/msg00041.html > > However the gnulib maintainers were disinclined to modify the practices > of the gnul

Re: Goodbye to GNU make's "build.sh" ... ?

2022-06-25 Thread Henrik Carlqvist
On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 15:28:52 -0800 Britton Kerin wrote: > On Sat, Jun 25, 2022, 1:48 PM Paul Smith wrote: > > If #2 is chosen, then a bootstrap process would involve first obtaining > > an older version of make, such as GNU make 4.3 or lower, and building > > that with its build.sh, then using t

Re: Goodbye to GNU make's "build.sh" ... ?

2022-06-25 Thread Britton Kerin
On Sat, Jun 25, 2022, 1:48 PM Paul Smith wrote: > I'm trying to decide what the future is for GNU make's "build.sh" > bootstrapping script. As you may recall, this script is provided to > allow GNU make to build on systems which don't already have an instance > of make installed. Its goal is to b

Goodbye to GNU make's "build.sh" ... ?

2022-06-25 Thread Paul Smith
I'm trying to decide what the future is for GNU make's "build.sh" bootstrapping script. As you may recall, this script is provided to allow GNU make to build on systems which don't already have an instance of make installed. Its goal is to build the first make binary, without of course all the fanc