Re: [dev] Reasonable Makefiles

From: Kurt Van Dijck <dev.kurt_AT_vandijck-laurijssen.be>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 14:32:58 +0100

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 11:41:43AM +0100, FRIGN wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 13:28:25 +0100
> Markus Teich <markus.teich_AT_stusta.mhn.de> wrote:
>
> > Heyho,
> >
> > Regarding the include config.mk used in various suckless projects: What is the
> > benefit? If a user needs to adapt it to his system, he effectively has to edit a
> > file. Would there be a problem if this file would be the Makefile instead of the
> > config.mk file?
>
> Regarding the config.mk, I don't see the benefit, either.

The major benefit I see is:
config.mk is build/host/target specific, Makefile is not.
Makefile goes into versioning, config.mk does not.
Combinining those complicates life.

> If I didn't
> know the concept how suckless-projects are organized in regard to their
> makefiles, I would look at the Makefile first and probably not notice
> the config.mk.

Editing directly in Makefile does work, but complicates long term
maintenance.
Your argument does not show that using config.mk is a wrong concept,
it illustrates that it's not enforced.

[...]

>
> I myself prefer a centralized make-system over a decentralized one with
> includes, but I'm sure there are people around here who can give good
> reasons for decentralizing this.

I would using 2 files hardly call 'decentralized'. Things can become worse
than that :-)

Kurt
Received on Tue Feb 11 2014 - 14:32:58 CET