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 <maand...@kth.se> wrote: > On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 21:07:06 +0100 > Laslo Hunhold <d...@frign.de> wrote: > > > On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 17:49:23 +0100 > > crae...@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 > > > >
