Re: [dev] Make cleanup

From: stephen Turner <>
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2018 16:27:51 -0500

I was thinking of a cleaner gnu make. The code you guys have written while I am having a hard time reading it, has inspired me to attempt once more to learn C.

I have always thought gnu was bloated but a significant improvement over windows. I got started when redhat was free (1999?) and about that time wanted to learn C but still a teen had no discipline for it.

Now with systemdumb er systemd plus the core of Linux bloating from 75 meg to over 100 I find myself bailing ship on gnu. I’m also not happy with this legal foss mob organization either and would prefer to see open source stay as it was, in the hands of hackers and hobbyists.

My day job is a Mac admin and I do love all the features in Mac but damn yet again talk about bloat! Still it’s far more stable at our office than pc.

Anyways, I’m looking for a gnu replacement to aid in installing those bloated apps we don’t have an alternative for or decide to continue to use anyways. Also need it for the kernel.

I would also like to see the Linux kernel get a sanity check but fat chance with that one!


On Dec 30, 2018, at 12:30 PM, wrote:

> On 2018-12-30 01:32, stephen Turner wrote:
> If one was going to rewrite a cleaner make what would be the
> recommended approach?
> I see in a slightly older 2012 release of the code entries for windows
> 32 and amiga. I’m questioning why!
> Would it be worth while to strip make of these items and then attempt
> to clean the code section by section? Diff a legacy and perhaps gnu
> exclusive version against a newer release, or perhaps another
> approach?
> In the past I have learned coding by jumping into an existing item and
> rewriting, not sure if this is a task I will take on but the thought
> has crossed my mind.
> I am not skilled enough to start from scratch and make is just too
> bloated as is to try and tackle for me, I’m thinking perhaps removing
> these legacy items and going from there?
> Thanks,
> Stephen

Dear Stephen,

Are you wanting to have a clean reimplementation of POSIX make or a new (simpler) build system to replace make itself? Having thought about it my opinions is that the second option is a better one.

If you agree consider joining forces with me on building makes <> a replacement for make. I have some initial work here which supports incremental and parallel builds. I'd be interested to hear you opinions on it.

You'll notice that it is ~200 lines while make is 39643 lines, I think that this demonstrates some potential of the idea <>.

- rain
Received on Sun Dec 30 2018 - 22:27:51 CET

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sun Dec 30 2018 - 22:36:08 CET