This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [RFC] Update minimum make version to 3.81
- From: "Paul E. Murphy" <murphyp at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- To: "libc-alpha at sourceware dot org" <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Cc: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, Mike Frysinger <vapier at gentoo dot org>, Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 15:44:00 -0500
- Subject: Re: [RFC] Update minimum make version to 3.81
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <9be74649-8a90-1023-df39-a319b6d85b74 at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <20160610222744 dot B09AB2C39F7 at topped-with-meat dot com> <20160610231050 dot GF4053 at vapier dot lan> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 20 dot 1606102322480 dot 20503 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk>
On 06/10/2016 06:25 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2016, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>
>> On 10 Jun 2016 15:27, Roland McGrath wrote:
>>> eval is a pretty horrible feature and I'd probably object to introducing
>>> any uses of it into libc's makefiles. We already have lots of things that
>>> might have been done that way, but are instead done with generated makefiles.
>>
>> while i agree, i still think we should raise the min make ver.
>> practically speaking, no one is testing 3.79 or 3.80.
>>
>> i wouldn't mind 3.82 myself -- that's 2010. our gcc & binutils
>> requirements are more recent than that.
>
> It took a long time for GNU/Linux distributors to move on from 3.81. For
> example, Ubuntu 14.04 uses 3.81.
>
With a little more elbow grease, I no longer have reason to
raise this requirement.
Are there any other compelling reasons to pursue a bump?