On 1/14/20 11:57 AM, Boris Kotov wrote: > "Makefile" has a well known and established syntax and people are > already mis-using it to create named scripts. > You can read about it on many resources. Its a fact like: > > - the syntax is well-known > - we agree, that "make" will never go into busybox.
Why not? It is useful, and has well-established POSIX properties/documentation, there are several other implementations to compare and test against, and it can be disabled by default in which case it won't add a single byte to anyone's busybox. Surely it's worth at least considering? I'd expect the reason it isn't a busybox applet is very simple: no one has contributed one. > - it is a general-purpose feature > - people are already using it (mis-using make) > > guess it would prevent 2% of all `apt add make` installs. + user scripts > become seomwaht smaller... > > So these are basically all my points on this. > I could also add, thats it is "*simple*, *clear*, *intuitive*" but like > others pointed out its _opinion based_, and I agree. -- Eli Schwartz Arch Linux Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
