On 02.08.2017 00:10, Ori Bernstein wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2017 23:29:04 +0300
ochern wrote:
Unfortunately as more complex becomes configuration part the more perverted
and unreadable it will look when done using make, at the same time it will
keep nice look in pure shell variant. Yet a lower p
On Sun, 23 Jul 2017 23:29:04 +0300
ochern wrote:
> Unfortunately as more complex becomes configuration part the more perverted
> and unreadable it will look when done using make, at the same time it will
> keep nice look in pure shell variant. Yet a lower part, rules part, will
> not change for
S. Gilles and you have pointed same negative property of sh -
readability. I agree that plane mk is good enough for static or almost
static configurations. Say I need to pass some -D flags according to
configuration/environment and such defines are meaningful and needed
only in current sub-module.
On 26 July 2017 at 03:28, ochern wrote:
> That's right. No new build system is suggested.
>
> Let me suggest a small poll:
> 1 What build systems do you consider as most suckless?
Plain mkfiles + rc or plain Makefile's + sh and sbase-compliant command usage.
> 2 Generating Makefile from a shell
That's right. No new build system is suggested.
Let me suggest a small poll:
1 What build systems do you consider as most suckless?
2 Generating Makefile from a shell script: it sucks, it's acceptable
or it's rather suckless?
It would be great if you give some explanation for your answer.
I thin
he said he is new here, not that he will create anything new.
On 7/24/17, r...@firemail.cc wrote:
> On 2017-07-23 07:47, ochern wrote:
>> 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
On 2017-07-23 07:47, ochern wrote:
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
Thanks for the example.
IMHO it looks same in lower part where rules are defined and worse in
the header part where configuring is performed. It looks close to
gmake and other clones that implement extension commands for running
shell one-liner. Unfortunately as more complex becomes configuration
On Sun, Jul 23, 2017, at 05:38, ochern wrote:
> . $TOP/build.conf
>
> case "$target_os" in
> gnulinux)
> SOURCES="$SOURCES linux.c"
> CFLAGS="-DENABLE_LINUX_FEATURES
> ;;
> *)
> SOURCES="$SOURCES unix.c"
> ;;
> esac
>
> OBJECTS=`src2obj $SOURCES`
> PROG=app
>
> cat
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 looks very close t
I agree that mk is very good and better than make, and also that it is
not radically different from make. Same thing goes for rc, it is very
good and better than Bourne shell (/bin/sh), but not radically
different. If you are looking for a radically different approach to
building, have you consid
On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 12:38:59PM +0300, ochern wrote:
> Thanks for the extended answer. mk looks very close to Make as I have
> read from the manual. I like Make as it's simple but not in cases when
> I try to build project consisting from multiple files and libraries
> with the need to parametri
Thanks for the extended answer. mk looks very close to Make as I have
read from the manual. I like Make as it's simple but not in cases when
I try to build project consisting from multiple files and libraries
with the need to parametrize configuration, take into account
different compilers, hosts,
Hi Alex,
On 23 July 2017 at 09:47, ochern wrote:
> 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
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
16 matches
Mail list logo