Re: [dev] lightweight build system

On 2017-07-23 07:47, ochern 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

Re: [dev] lightweight build system

Thanks for the example. IMHO it looks same in lower part where rules are defined and worse in the header part where configuring is performed. It looks close to gmake and other clones that implement extension commands for running shell one-liner. Unfortunately as more complex becomes configuration

[dev] Re: Some suckless hackathon 2017 preparation

Hi Silvan, Silvan Jegen writes: >> i) improvements to suckless.org and our general project setup (switch >> to quark, stagit, static swerc, git://, streamline all projects, drop >> drop-candidates, etc) >> ii) improvements to the system tool landscape with a focus on probably >> the static-izing

[dev] [ANNOUNCE] vis-0.4

Hi, vis 0.4 is out: https://github.com/martanne/vis/archive/v0.4.tar.gz Changes include: - Selections as core editing primitives. Cursors have been superseded by singleton selections. Overlapping selections are now merged. This change is also reflected in the exposed Lua API (for which

Re: [dev] lightweight build system

On Sun, Jul 23, 2017, at 05:38, ochern wrote: > . $TOP/build.conf > > case "$target_os" in > gnulinux) > SOURCES="$SOURCES linux.c" > CFLAGS="-DENABLE_LINUX_FEATURES > ;; > *) > SOURCES="$SOURCES unix.c" > ;; > esac > > OBJECTS=`src2obj $SOURCES` > PROG=app > > cat

Re: [dev] Some suckless hackathon 2017 preparation

Hi Anselm On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 03:30:05PM +0200, Anselm R Garbe wrote: > Second, one goal of the slackathon is also to streamline the project > landscape of suckless.org, which also means we should presumably > define 3-4 clusters that will be addressed during the event and > identify all areas

Re: [dev] Some suckless hackathon 2017 preparation

On Sun, 23 Jul 2017 15:30:05 +0200 Anselm R Garbe wrote: Hey Anselm, > Second, one goal of the slackathon is also to streamline the project > landscape of suckless.org, which also means we should presumably > define 3-4 clusters that will be addressed during the event and > identify all areas th

Re: [dev] Some suckless hackathon 2017 preparation

Hi there, thanks for your suggestion to prepare the content we could work on during slackathon 2017. Let me chime in with some thoughts: First of all -- for all of you who can't attend slackathon in person, but still would like to support the outcome somehow, I encourage you to adjust your sched

Re: [dev] lightweight build system

Absolutely not looking for radical. I prefer standard sh and make, not invent new make variations or, worse, new formats and languages. Every new make variant declares to retain all good and fix all bad from classic make by inventing just another one declarative syntax. Usually it looks weird. IMHO

[dev] Some suckless hackathon 2017 preparation

Heyho! I thought we could try to organize people into interest groups around suckless projects and think of goals within them to reach for the suckless hackathon 2017. That way we can save some organisation time at the hackathon itself since then people should already know what start with and they

Re: [dev] lightweight build system

Using static Makefiles is not always KISS. Sometimes it's simpler to generate Makefile. sh is also available everywhere. Alex On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Hiltjo Posthuma wrote: > On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 12:38:59PM +0300, ochern wrote: >> Thanks for the extended answer. mk looks very close t

Re: [dev] lightweight build system

I agree that mk is very good and better than make, and also that it is not radically different from make. Same thing goes for rc, it is very good and better than Bourne shell (/bin/sh), but not radically different. If you are looking for a radically different approach to building, have you consid

Re: [dev] lightweight build system

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 parametri

Re: [dev] lightweight build system

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,

Re: [dev] lightweight build system

Hi Alex, On 23 July 2017 at 09:47, ochern 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

[dev] lightweight build system

hi all, 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 sy