GNU make version

Mat M matm at
Tue Mar 6 16:28:05 PST 2012


Could someone point to archive on choosing gnumake ?
I am surprised cmake was not elected, since the C means cross-platform,  
and that is one basic of LO.


Mat M

Le Wed, 07 Mar 2012 00:13:11 +0100, Matúš Kukan <matus.kukan at> a  

> On 6 March 2012 19:56, Michael Stahl <mstahl at> wrote:
>> On 06/03/12 18:12, Michael Meeks wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2012-03-06 at 19:08 +0200, Noel Grandin wrote:
>>>> Don't see why we shouldn't maintain our own patched copy of gmake the
>>>> same way we maintain patched copies of other components.
>>>       There was a long discussion about this at the ESC :-) and I  
>>> disagree
>>> with the decision, am still suffering slower builds from it on all my
>>> machines, but don't much feel like re-opening it personally.
>> uhm, wasn't one of the reasons for picking GNU make that "it's standard,
>> and available everywhere, and we won't get stuck in the situation where
>> we have to maintain our own build tool" ?
> That could be a reason but when now turns out that also GNU make sucks,
> why we couldn't change our mind ?
> From what I read here on the dev ML I understood it's ~impossible to get
> our patches upstream so there is no other option than build again our  
> own make.
> It's small and builds nicely (I think), so hopefully that's easy.
> The problem with patched 3.81 being faster than 3.82 can be hopefully
> also solved.
> Of course there can be also real disadvantages, I just can't see them.
> Anyway, don't take me too much seriously, just my 2 cents.
> All the best,
> Matus
> _______________________________________________
> LibreOffice mailing list
> LibreOffice at

Utilisant le logiciel de courrier révolutionnaire d'Opera :

More information about the LibreOffice mailing list