Re: [dev] [sxiv] doesn't want to be compiled

From: Bert Münnich <ber.t_AT_posteo.de>
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 19:37:25 +0200

On 08.10.17, Laslo Hunhold wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 10:43:27 +0200
> Bert Münnich <ber.t_AT_posteo.de> wrote:
>
> Dear Bert,
>
> > Maybe it's better to write a new minimal BSD Makefile using
> > bsd.prog.mk instead of tailoring sxiv's GNU Makefile to make it work
> > with BSD make.
>
> just read the POSIX spec[0] on make and stop thinking within the bounds
> of BSD or GNU make.
> It's hard to make it right, but I went through great efforts to make
> the farbfeld makefile[1] truly portable. Another good resource and
> closer to your needs is the, also portable, slstatus makefile[2].
>
> We need to stop falling for the fallacy that "portable" means "works
> with BSDmake and GNUmake". Truly portable means consistent with the
> POSIX spec.

I can only repeat the paragraph that directly preceded the one you've
quoted:

> I rather use a portable make than bother to write a portable Makefile.
> Also, out-of-source builds are much harder if only using POSIX make
> syntax.

I have spent a considerable amount of time with both POSIX make and GNU
make and deliberately made the choice to use the latter.

Before switching to GNU make I had a portable Makefile and users kept
asking me to use '+=' and '?=' macro assignment operators for the
standard macros like 'CC' and 'CFLAGS'.

Also, when using POSIX one can still encounter users whose systems do
not support the latest draft. Correct me if I am wrong, but POSIX
supports 'include' only since the 2016 version.

And since switching to GNU make I really got the hang of automatic
dependency generation and out-of-source builds.

For me it all boils down to rather having a build process that the
authors can enjoy instead of limiting themselves to the most basic
features.

        Bert
Received on Sun Oct 08 2017 - 19:37:25 CEST