I get the parser of C
> already in the compiler and does not need to reinvent a language
> parser for "options".
I agree. There is CPP and config.h is reasonably good and sufficient.
Regards.
Alex
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> On 26 July 2017 at 03:28,
your answer.
I think the collected info would be interesting for all from the community.
Thanks.
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 12:22 PM, hiro <23h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> he said he is new here, not that he will create anything new.
>
> On 7/24/17, r...@firemail.cc wrote:
>> On 201
23, 2017 at 6:36 PM, Greg Reagle wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 23, 2017, at 05:38, ochern wrote:
>> . $TOP/build.conf
>>
>> case "$target_os" in
>> gnulinux)
>> SOURCES="$SOURCES linux.c"
>> CFLAGS="-DENABLE_LINUX_FEATURES
>>
Absolutely not looking for radical. I prefer standard sh and make, not
invent new make variations or, worse, new formats and languages. Every
new make variant declares to retain all good and fix all bad from
classic make by inventing just another one declarative syntax. Usually
it looks weird. IMHO
Using static Makefiles is not always KISS. Sometimes it's simpler to
generate Makefile. sh is also available everywhere.
Alex
On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Hiltjo Posthuma wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 12:38:59PM +0300, ochern wrote:
>> Thanks for the extended answer. mk lo
n runs toplevel mkmf that call all other mkmf
scripts recursively. Thus we have a simple and flexible build system.
I'd like to read about rc and 9base. Could you give some reference?
Alex
On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> On 23 July 2017 at 09:47,
hi all,
I'm new here and I want to ask if somebody is interested in discussing
a development of lightweight build system based on simple Shell and
Make. It would be great to hear the opinions from the community and
may be there would rise a common welth and opportunity to develop
suckless build sy
