Re: Guile language support in make

[Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

Steve McIntyre writes ("Re: Guile language support in make"):
> Russ Allbery wrote:
> >I think building two separate binaries makes more sense than adding Guile
> >support by default for all the reasons you stated.  We do similar things
> >with Emacs, which has a -nox version to avoid pulling in tons of X
> >libraries, and I think it's more important for make.
> 
> Thinking about the poor people trying to bootstrap things, I'm tempted
> to suggest doing this as two separate source packages. Make is *so*
> far down the bottom of the stack that adding a dependency on another
> language could cause significant problems.

This is what build profiles are for.

Ian.