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 parametrize configuration, take into account
> different compilers, hosts, targets and dependencies. I can't rely on
> simple Makefile in this case. But I don't like autogenerated bullshit
> from Autohell also. What is the reason to invent any new version of
> Make-like tool when it's possible just to put your old Makefile in
> Shell here-document and parametrize it using Shell full-grain
> programming language. Here is an example of 'mkmf' script that
> generates final Makefile:
>
> # --------------------------------
>
> . $TOP/build.conf
>
> case "$target_os" in
> gnulinux)
> SOURCES="$SOURCES linux.c"
> CFLAGS="-DENABLE_LINUX_FEATURES
> ;;
> *)
> SOURCES="$SOURCES unix.c"
> ;;
> esac
>
> OBJECTS=`src2obj $SOURCES`
> PROG=app
>
> cat <<EOF >Makefile
>
> $PROG: $OBJECTS
> $CC -o $PROG $OBJECTS
>
> o.c.:
> $CC -c $CFLAGS \$< -o \$_AT_
>
> EOF
>
> # ----------------------------------
>
> It's just a simple example. But it shows that we can put Makefile
> inside Shell instead of Shell inside Makefile rules. It give full
> control over the final Makefile using common programming in Shell
> instead of using freaky GNU Make or else extentions that give very
> little.
> Shell is rather standardized and it's not hard to write rather
> portable script. No I don't say about insane portability as Autoconf
> tries to provide, though it doesn't work. Instead I think it's wise to
> support rather modern environments and not care about different old
> osf1-based systems. 99% of current OSes have Bash that is compatible
> with POSIX SH. I made scripts that work fine on all linuxes, bsds,
> macos, solaris, commercial unixes, cygwin, msys. Most problems I had
> with Solaris sh.
>
> According to your schema user must install 9base+rc to be able to
> build a package, right? It's not simpler than just run './configure;
> make'.
>
> I'm not focusing on another build system but rather rethinking
> standard usage of Make by substituting it with 'mkmf' shell scripts
> that wrap Makefile into Shell. This is the core. Every Makefile can be
> substituted by 'mkmf'. mkmf generates Makefile and runs all other mkmf
> scripts in subdirs. So by running a toplevel mkmf we generate a
> hierarchy of makefiles. Additionally we can add toplevel 'configure'
> to provide simple configuration by command-line parameters like
> -prefix, -enable-xxx etc. configure runs and generates toplevel
> build.conf and than runs toplevel mkmf that call all other mkmf
> scripts recursively. Thus we have a simple and flexible build system.
>
> I'd like to read about rc and 9base. Could you give some reference?
>
> Alex
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Anselm R Garbe <garbeam_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Alex,
> >
> > On 23 July 2017 at 09:47, ochern <dexahex_AT_gmail.com> 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 to develop
> >> suckless build system :)
> >
> > Imho an almost suckless build system already exists: mk[0]+9base.
> >
> > "Almost" derives from the fact, that 9base or p9p in conjunction with
> > the popular rc shell is kind of an alien citizen in a regular
> > Linux/BSD environment, and thus probably not the easiest choice for
> > gaining straight adoption. Nevertheless, if you dig deeper into all
> > the problems of GNU vs BSD vs Shitwaris etc. userlands, you will
> > notice that it becomes a hard task to find a suitable subset in
> > Makefiles + shell commands that will work almost painfree on most
> > platforms. sbase+ubase doesn't ease the solution, as they don't nicely
> > co-exist with GNU or BSD userlands.
> >
> > In such situations, relying on mk+9base is an excellent choice, as the
> > limitations of mk, rc and its native userland are well understood --
> > and still mk+9base are a lot(!) smaller in code size than bash for
> > instance.
> >
> > For stali development I considered switching to mk, but concluded it
> > isn't worth the effort as stali can only be built in a Linux
> > environment anyways.
> >
> > To conclude, mk and our just-Makefile based build systems aren't
> > perfect, but they are extremely suckless in comparison to generated
> > GNUmakefiles and GNU authell.
> >
> > Instead on focussing on yet another build system, I would rather
> > suggest to focus on a better mail archiver or to work on a nice
> > bugtracker, that fits well into the mlmmj world of things.
> >
> > [0] http://doc.cat-v.org/bell_labs/mk/mk.pdf
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Anselm
> >
>
Keep it simple and write portable Makefile's: test it on Linux, *BSD etc.
make is available everywhere.
--
Kind regards,
Hiltjo
Received on Sun Jul 23 2017 - 13:10:01 CEST