Re: [dev] lightweight build system

2017-08-28 Thread Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
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

Re: [dev] lightweight build system

2017-08-01 Thread Ori Bernstein
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

Re: [dev] lightweight build system

2017-07-26 Thread ochern
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.

Re: [dev] lightweight build system

2017-07-26 Thread Anselm R Garbe
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

Re: [dev] lightweight build system

2017-07-25 Thread ochern
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

Re: [dev] lightweight build system

2017-07-24 Thread hiro
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

Re: [dev] lightweight build system

2017-07-23 Thread raiz
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

Re: [dev] lightweight build system

2017-07-23 Thread ochern
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

Re: [dev] lightweight build system

2017-07-23 Thread Greg Reagle
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

Re: [dev] lightweight build system

2017-07-23 Thread ochern
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

Re: [dev] lightweight build system

2017-07-23 Thread ochern
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

Re: [dev] lightweight build system

2017-07-23 Thread Greg Reagle
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

Re: [dev] lightweight build system

2017-07-23 Thread Hiltjo Posthuma
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

Re: [dev] lightweight build system

2017-07-23 Thread ochern
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,

Re: [dev] lightweight build system

2017-07-23 Thread Anselm R Garbe
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

[dev] lightweight build system

2017-07-23 Thread ochern
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