Hi Branden, On Fri, Dec 20, 2024 at 11:42:38AM GMT, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > > As GNU make(1) maintainer says (IIRC), don't write portable Makefiles, > > write GNU Makefiles, and port GNU make(1). > > These days the maintainer is Paul Smith. I don't know if he said that > originally,
Here's the actual quote, from Paul's "Rules of Makefiles": | 1. Use GNU make. | | Don’t hassle with writing portable makefiles, use a portable make | instead! <https://make.mad-scientist.net/papers/rules-of-makefiles/> > but POSIX 2024 make is _vastly_ improved over that of > previous editions of the standard. Yet, I'll continue writing GNU Makefiles. We'll see if POSIX make(1) improves things enough that I can drop GNU extensions some day. But I'm skeptic for the moment. At the same time, I'm optimistic, but it'll take time. I doubt that the build system that I'm using in the Linux man-pages could be written in POSIX make(1). > I was just last night reading a book with a chapter on Make from _1997_ > and I was appalled at how current it _still_ had been, with respect to > "standard" Make, until earlier this year. > > Things are _much_ better now. > > https://gist.github.com/Earnestly/29deee4f18346da6630ed1df760f1590 > > Pick up those new standard Makefile features and push them as hard as > you can. Drop in a '.POSIX:' and see how far you can now go. > > And of course you can keep using GNU Make while you do so. Have a lovely night! Alex -- <https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
