Re: *** GMX Spamverdacht *** [dev] Reasonable Makefiles

From: sin <sin_AT_2f30.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 18:42:19 +0000

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 07:16:35PM +0100, Markus Wichmann wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:19:59PM +0000, Nick wrote:
> > I was reading the opengroup specifications for make(1) recently[0],
> > and found that even our standard makefile practise of using 'include'
> > for config variables is nonstandard, as far as they're concerned.
> > Needless to say I think 'include' is a perfectly reasonable feature
> > to use, and it evidently works everywhere that people care about.
> >
> > But it got me thinking about what other features of make are worth
> > using. Basically because I'm replacing a autotools horrorshow with
> > plain make, but am not sure what the nicest way of allowing compile-
> > time feature disabling is. Can 'ifdef' be relied upon, and does it
> > tend to produce unreadable and buggy makefiles in anyone's
> > experience? Are there other options, beyond asking people to comment
> > out certain lines in a config.mk, to e.g. disable some LDFLAGS?
> >
>
> If you want a nice looking user interface for choices, have a look at
> kconf. Otherwise just assume that people know to look for the correct
> variable to change what they need. Using autoconf just to spare people
> the pain of opening an editor is really not worth it.

kconf? really?

> By the way, I usually write my Makefiles for GNU make. Its
> implementation may be bad, but its ideas are also used in mk.

Good luck.

> Why did make become the horrible cancer that it is today? Because
> developers thought it inadequate in some respects and made
> vendor-specific changes. Who's to say that won't happen for mk? I mean,
> assuming it ever gets sufficient exposure (sorry guys, but technological
> superiority doesn't guarentee market share, which is the primary reason
> for autohell, cmake, and qmake), someone will want to change
> something about it. Things will grow on it. mk will become just as
> bloated as make, come 20 years or so.

Because people like you choose to be insane.

> Why? If Linux wasn't as configurable as it is, it would be completely
> unusable, or would you rather compiler _all_ the drivers all the time?
> Same for other software.

Yes.
Received on Tue Feb 11 2014 - 19:42:19 CET