From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id rDQ0HNTqgGAgTAAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 23:17:40 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 65C051F104; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 23:17:40 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RDNS_DYNAMIC,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (ip-8-43-85-97.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB6E61E54D for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 23:17:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59B40398B846; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 03:17:39 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 59B40398B846 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1619061459; bh=3vJwUvb3x1cgHl1kpLPUZXfEMvlwTk9djOvpV9fmC3A=; h=Date:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=AaYNn+ELqPWdBEOgNdHtkN/Qtk0ArAQdZlkiNgSWZMnohpEU/haVybQBqYa2PGmlG /rc+lA+pcjTuRRX8j9bDFR360or9cfxAOEnTTBA4LwnNEKUrx+TzkwSJFtgFaavu27 YiToCg6bq8Me+9smVYK2lwWVCK4mjiIef/fBKxQs= Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D87B398B846 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 03:17:36 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 3D87B398B846 Received: from vapier (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BEB1E34110B; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 03:17:34 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 23:17:33 -0400 To: Tom Tromey Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/10] Require GNU make Message-ID: Mail-Followup-To: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20210408203312.2938165-1-tom@tromey.com> <20210408203312.2938165-5-tom@tromey.com> <878s5rjs1g.fsf@tromey.com> <87wnsvfcxe.fsf@tromey.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87wnsvfcxe.fsf@tromey.com> X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Mike Frysinger via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Mike Frysinger Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" On 21 Apr 2021 17:14, Tom Tromey wrote: > >>>>> "Mike" == Mike Frysinger via Gdb-patches writes: > > Mike> you're not wrong, but i don't think it's any worse than plain make. i'm > Mike> not plain make would be better either. we're using non-recursive make :). > > Yeah, a non-recursive build would definitely be better. Given that this > is the goal, I'm thinking I may drop some of this series. I guess I > would keep patch #1-#7 (some are a different direction from Automake, > but improve things in an updateable way in the meantime), drop #8 and #9 > (which split up Make-common.in, probably just making things harder), and > keep #10 (remove some configure checks). > > Let me know if that sounds OK to you. sure, sgtm. i'm not anti-iterating on the current common/Make-common.in stuff if you want, i'm just trying to minimize my own contributions in that space until i can nuke it entirely :). -mike