This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: gcc-4.9: How to generate Makefile.in from a modified Makefile.am?
- From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- To: Svante Signell <svante dot signell at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>, Chung-Ju Wu <jasonwucj at gmail dot com>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org List" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 11:53:30 +0100
- Subject: Re: gcc-4.9: How to generate Makefile.in from a modified Makefile.am?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1395829471 dot 14680 dot 18 dot camel at G3620 dot my dot own dot domain> <CADj25HPuspXDKYdRAYLKLeuymcbOKkPpD=jFQdkTLKSXxDNa+w at mail dot gmail dot com> <1395912941 dot 14680 dot 57 dot camel at G3620 dot my dot own dot domain> <CAH6eHdSaDksAzdkTKp__itDn1yErBf_b96P=q2xRSGci7QSgPw at mail dot gmail dot com> <1395915929 dot 14680 dot 63 dot camel at G3620 dot my dot own dot domain>
- Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 11:25:29AM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> Of course not, but what's hindering upgrading the build system tools
> when new source versions are released. And again, will the autotools
> ever be backwards compatible?
The autotools required versions change over time, but always require
effort of some build system maintainer or other volunteer to test that
things will work well with the new autotools, porting what needs to be
ported to the new version etc.
The requirement that everybody uses the same versions to regenerate files
has also another advantage, that there are no significant and sometimes
disruptive changes in the generated files, say if one committer would
regenerate with autoconf 2.69, then another with 2.64, another with 2.68,
another with 2.65, then often there are huge changes in the generated files
caused by the differences in the autotools.