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 \$@ > > 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 <garb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > > > On 23 July 2017 at 09:47, ochern <dexa...@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
