From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 75559 invoked by alias); 18 Nov 2016 13:00:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 67738 invoked by uid 89); 18 Nov 2016 13:00:46 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy= X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients X-HELO: simark.ca Received: from simark.ca (HELO simark.ca) (158.69.221.121) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 18 Nov 2016 13:00:44 +0000 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 33) id D611B1E809; Fri, 18 Nov 2016 08:00:42 -0500 (EST) To: Nick Clifton Subject: Re: Require GNU make to build binutils-gdb X-PHP-Originating-Script: 33:rcube.php MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 13:00:00 -0000 From: Simon Marchi Cc: binutils@sourceware.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <80053c28-1a47-8f80-04fb-7bdf76115077@redhat.com> References: <144f4f68acf24fc1084b585700c65b63@polymtl.ca> <80053c28-1a47-8f80-04fb-7bdf76115077@redhat.com> Message-ID: <85e5ade0f75ee3ced79946ec9462b7f6@polymtl.ca> X-Sender: simon.marchi@polymtl.ca User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.2.2 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-11/txt/msg00507.txt.bz2 Hi Nick, On 2016-11-18 05:33, Nick Clifton wrote: > I think that this is a good idea, although maybe it would be > helpful to take a two stage approach: for one release (of > binutils) issue an error message if a non-GNU make is used, > but allow a configure option to override this. (In the same > way that obsolete targets are currently handled). Then for > the release after that make GNU make a hard requirement. > > That way we give users a chance to give us feedback if they > are using a non-GNU make and they do not have the option of > changing. That seems fair. Would you add that check in the top-level Makefile or in the binutils/ Makefile? Simon