Side by side
GNU Automake vs Please
Both stand on build automation software. Which one you can start free with, which one lets you read the code, and what each costs once you pay.
Free plan
Automake can reduce Makefile upkeep and provides support for tests and distribution packaging. Its Autoconf requirement and project constraints are important considerations before adopting it.
Visit GNU Automake
Free plan LinuxMac
Please offers a code-defined, reproducible build workflow with caching, plugins, editor tooling, and CI guidance. Its native platform coverage and mobile-development limitation matter for some projects.
Visit PleaseThe facts
| GNU Automake | Please | |
|---|---|---|
| Free plan | Yes | Yes |
| Open source | Not published | Not published |
| Runs on | Not published | Linux, Mac |
| Lowest paid plan | Free or on request | Not published |
| Plans published | 1 | None |
| Maker | Not published | Not published |
| Website | gnu.org | please.build |
| On build automation software | #27 of 42 | #31 of 42 |
GNU Automake: what it does well
- Free, with no paid plans or usage limits stated.
- Generates GNU Coding Standards-compliant Makefile.in files.
- Supports programs, libraries, and shared libraries.
- Can package gzipped tar files and other archive formats.
What to know first
- Projects must use GNU Autoconf.
- Perl is required to generate Makefile.in files.
- Automake imposes constraints on project structure and configure.ac.
Please: what it does well
- Hermetic steps support reproducible builds
- Caching and parallelism speed incremental work
- Plugins cover multiple languages and technologies
- Language server supports rich BUILD-file editing
- Integrates with GitHub Actions
What to know first
- Windows is not supported natively
- Remote execution is experimental
- FAQ notes less mobile-development support
Alternatives to GNU Automake Alternatives to Please The whole list