Re: [dev] [sxiv] doesn't want to be compiled

2017-10-08 Thread Greg Reagle
On Sun, Oct 8, 2017, at 07:05, Laslo Hunhold wrote: > mk is nice, but there is just not enough "spread" of it to justify > using it. Everyone with a toolchain has a POSIX compliant make utility. > The problem with 9base/mk is that many people don't associate the two. I don't understand what you me

Re: [dev] [sxiv] doesn't want to be compiled

2017-10-08 Thread Bert Münnich
On 08.10.17, Laslo Hunhold wrote: > On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 10:43:27 +0200 > Bert Münnich wrote: > > Dear Bert, > > > Maybe it's better to write a new minimal BSD Makefile using > > bsd.prog.mk instead of tailoring sxiv's GNU Makefile to make it work > > with BSD make. > > just read the POSIX spec[0]

Re: Re: [dev] [sxiv] doesn't want to be compiled

2017-10-08 Thread Cág
Laslo Hunhold wrote: > We need to stop falling for the fallacy that "portable" means "works > with BSDmake and GNUmake". Truly portable means consistent with the > POSIX spec. How different is BSD make from POSIX make? The man page says it's "mostly compliant" (it also says that "most of the more

Re: [dev] [sxiv] doesn't want to be compiled

2017-10-08 Thread Laslo Hunhold
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 11:14:21 +0200 Anselm Garbe wrote: Dear Anselm, > Using GNUmake is a poor choice. At least most suckless stuff builds > fine with either BSD oder GNU make. yes, using GNUism is never a good choice. Every step must be taken to move away from the cancer that GNU is, infesting a

Re: [dev] [sxiv] doesn't want to be compiled

2017-10-08 Thread Laslo Hunhold
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 10:43:27 +0200 Bert Münnich wrote: Dear Bert, > Maybe it's better to write a new minimal BSD Makefile using > bsd.prog.mk instead of tailoring sxiv's GNU Makefile to make it work > with BSD make. just read the POSIX spec[0] on make and stop thinking within the bounds of BSD o

Re: Re: [dev] [sxiv] doesn't want to be compiled

2017-10-08 Thread Anselm Garbe
On 8 October 2017 at 10:43, Bert Münnich wrote: > Yes, I am. Unfortunately for you, I have no such plans. I rather use a > portable make than bother to write a portable Makefile. Also, > out-of-source builds are much harder if only using POSIX make syntax. > > Maybe it's better to write a new mini

Re: Re: [dev] [sxiv] doesn't want to be compiled

2017-10-08 Thread Bert Münnich
On 07.10.17, Cág wrote: > I've tried it, the output complains about missing object files: > --- > cc: autoreload_inotify.o: No such file or directory > cc: commands.o: No such file or directory > cc: image.o: No such file or directory > cc: main.o: No such file or directory > cc: options.o: No such