I just started implementing a linter[0]. Even though I just
started it today, I think that's enough for this year.
Happy New Year!
Mattias Andrée
[0]
https://github.com/maandree/makelint/
On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 21:17:32 +0100
Mattias Andrée <maandree_AT_kth.se> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 21:07:06 +0100
> Laslo Hunhold <dev_AT_frign.de> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 17:49:23 +0100
> > craekz7_AT_gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Dear craekz,
> >
> > > As far as I can see, we could add `.POSIX` to the following programs:
> > > dwm, dmenu, dwmstatus, sent and tabbed
> > > I've just looked over the Makefiles very briefly, so I may have
> > > overseen something. Note: I just picked out the "biggest" programs.
> >
> > sadly the make-implementations out there don't offer a "strict" mode to
> > warn you about non-compliance or undefined behaviour. GNU make (as
>
> I've actually being thinking of writing a makefile linter.
> How interested would people be in such a tool?
>
> The reason to have a linter separate from a make utility itself
> is that it would not have to reject non-standard features that
> you don't want to implement in make. And I also think it would for
> cleaner implementation of both projects. Additionally, I would
> suspect that a lot of people would just stay with GNU make because
> it's in every distro, so having it as a separate project would
> probably give it wider adoption.
>
>
> > usual with GNU products) added a lot of GNU-extensions and poisoned the
> > entire ecosystem. It's really easy to write non-compliant makefiles and
> > have things silently break or behave slightly different across
> > implementations.
> >
> > Adding a .POSIX target is one thing, it's another to actually verify
> > the makefiles are POSIX-compliant.
> >
> > It would be a cool project-idea to write a very strict POSIX-compliant
> > make-implementation that, if it includes extensions, marks them as such
> > and prints a warning if desired. mk by plan9 is also very nice, of
> > course, but makefiles are the common denominator in the scene and it
> > might be a cool incentive to have such a validating make.
> >
> > A lot of new systems are used all over the place, like cmake, ninja and
> > whatnot, so it might be cool to show how zen it is to just work with a
> > make-based build-system. One example is the really trivial way to
> > package suckless-projects, e.g. libgrapheme[0]. It doesn't get simpler
> > than that.
> >
> > With best regards
> >
> > Laslo
> >
> > [0]:https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/tree/PKGBUILD?h=libgrapheme
> >
>
>
Received on Fri Dec 31 2021 - 23:29:11 CET