51–60 of 144 posts
This pattern of usage always seems like abuse. When `make` is used as a glorified front-end to `bash` scriptlets, why not use `bash` directly instead of having two-level of scripting? See: https://blog.aloni.org/posts/bash-functional-command-relay/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah. Which is why I wouldn't implement that in the first place - I come down hard on the idea that you should ship your dependencies, have them in a standard place or use a third-party resolution system (like every vaugely modern setup does. C#, Python, Ruby, Node, Rust even Java all understand that this is not optional anymore). Its a code smell to me when your build system starts to become too complicated and not…
You do know that there is software that runs on more than one version of Linux (or even on a *BSD, MacOS or Windows), works with more than a single version of a compiler,...?
The solution is not to ship complicated and bug infested build systems, it is to fix the dependency problem in the same way any other language has done so far and until we do this, ship the dependencies with the program.
And if you aren't making a GUI and don't need to target Windows, just wrap it in Docker, which enforces a functional dependency system and means you can ship your dependencies.
If you're going to use Makefiles as a top-level build wrapper you might be interested in self-documenting targets. https://marmelab.com/blog/2016/02/29/auto-documented-makefil...
help:
@grep -E '^[a-zA-Z_-]+:.*?## .*$$' $(MAKEFILE_LIST) | sort | awk 'BEGIN {FS = ":.*?## "}; {printf "\033[36m%-30s\033[0m %s\n", $$1, $$2}'
# Help idea derived from https://marmelab.com/blog/2016/02/29/auto-documented-makefile.html
# Prints the help-text from `target: ## help-text`, slightly reformatted and sorted
.PHONY: help
help: ## Write this help
awk 'BEGIN {FS = ":.*#+"}; /^[a-zA-Z_*.-]+:.*## .*$$/ {printf "%-30s %s\n", $$1, $$2}' $(MAKEFILE_LIST) | sort
What's the rationale for using makefiles as script runners over just having a directory with scripts inside? Not for compiling, just as script runner. I see this practice often and I haven't found a good reason
I use it quite a lot for automating deployments - if you want to Terraform up a VM:
make colo1-fooserver01.vm
make colo1-fooserver01
This pattern of usage always seems like abuse. When `make` is used as a glorified front-end to `bash` scriptlets, why not use `bash` directly instead of having two-level of scripting? See: https://blog.aloni.org/posts/bash-functional-command-relay/
You can do that in Bash. And now you've reinvented Makefile, but poorly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You do know that there is software that runs on more than one version of Linux (or even on a *BSD, MacOS or Windows), works with more than a single version of a compiler,...?
Thats only really a problem for C/C++, which I have had the misfortune to make build systems for. The solution is not to ship complicated and bug infested build systems, it is to fix the dependency problem in the same way any other language has done so far and until we do this, ship the dependencies with the program. And if you aren't making a GUI and don't need to target Windows, just wrap it in Docker, which enforc…
Even if that would be true, still every language that isn't C (or JS in the browser) needs to link or build against some C (or Fortran), which results in more or less working solutions on how to integrate with or build C sources. Of course you may not see that (as long as it works), because somebody else has wrapped that up in a package (or whatever) for your language of choice, but somebody has to do that.
> ship the dependencies with the program.
My post should have been the answer to this argument: this is not possible for example when "shipping" the source for a cross-platform library. Or a cross-platform end-user program/app. Or just about anything which isn't "just" some web-backend or a server of some kind.
Does that mean _you_ need a complicated (I'd call that "working for anything but the most basic stuff") build-system? No.
I am a bit puzzled by this phrase:
> The solution is not to ship complicated and bug infested build systems, it is to fix the dependency problem in the same way any other language has done so far
But any other language than C or C++ (sadly, _way_ less than "any other") solves that by using a complicated and bug infested build system(s) and package manager(s) or a combination of both.
If you’re really looking for a tool to collect small steps/script I highly recommend you check out the ‘just’ cli tool. It’s completely replaced our use of Make and the syntax is much easier.
make: ** No rule to make target `love'. Stop.
This pattern of usage always seems like abuse. When `make` is used as a glorified front-end to `bash` scriptlets, why not use `bash` directly instead of having two-level of scripting? See: https://blog.aloni.org/posts/bash-functional-command-relay/
If you’re really looking for a tool to collect small steps/script I highly recommend you check out the ‘just’ cli tool. It’s completely replaced our use of Make and the syntax is much easier.
Seconded. For all the million things we used Makefiles for besides compiling software, Just is much more ergonomic.