 |
lua-l archive |
|
|
||
|
I recently posted a patch to the GNU make mailing list that hasn't gotten a lot of attention yet. http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/help-make/2006-10/msg00018.html It adds $(lua ...) to make so you can execute lua programs similarly to the way you can execute shell commands with $(shell ...). I think this may obviate the need for Guile support which has been on the radar for several years. If any of you think this is a great thing for make, please make some noise at help-make@gnu.org so we can possibly get the maintainers to accept it into the official distribution for the next release. I'm including the original attachments as the linked mail archive munges the filenames when I try to download them. Ken Smith On 10/16/06, Asko Kauppi <askok@dnainternet.net> wrote:
...which brought to my mind, that Hamster does .h dependencies
automatically.
I agree with you; having been both a Make what-the-... and, nowadays
a huge fan (to the extent that I get mocked at work about that) of
it. It does rule, and I'm suggesting it to use outside of the
building processes as well. Any dependencies, that's Make.
To the point? I'd like to take part if someone wants to start a "Lua
macros for make" project. It'd basically be a set of Makefiles (for
inclusion) that define usable features, using Lua. The use would be
to come along without sed, awk, grep and other such Unix candies,
allowing the Make+Lua+macros approach to run on Windows (ehem!) based
machines as well.
I think LuaRocks will need this; and I'm going to be there to help
build it. But the scope of usability would be wider.
-asko
Sam Roberts kirjoitti 16.10.2006 kello 21.26:
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 06:44:58PM -0700, Wesley Smith wrote:
>> I can't tell you how much I agree you here. Everytime I've tried to
>> use make to build a project of any size that uses subdirectories, it
>> has been a nightmare of looking at GNU's make documentation and
>> wondering who on earth made such an esoteric beast. I wonder if the
>
> make doesn't care what directory your files are in, you haven't
> figured
> out how to use the tool yet if that is causing you trouble.
>
> People have trouble with make because they attempt to use it as an
> imperative language. Its not, its a rules-based language (akin to
> logic
> languages like Prolog) wherein you state the conditions that must hold
> for a particular goal ("target") to be satisfied. I think its the only
> language of that type that is commonly used.
>
> The other thing that people don't get about make is its a unix
> tool. It
> does ONE thing well, evaluating dependency rules to determine how to
> achieve goals. The rules themselves are usually built statically, in a
> language other than make, i.e., you have to mix make with other tools
> for a complete build system. In particular, dependency rules
> should be
> built by a tool that knows as much as possible about C code... like
> a C compiler:
>
> http://make.paulandlesley.org/autodep.html
>
> Cheers,
> Sam
>
Attachment:
GNUmakefile
Description: Binary data
Attachment:
make-3.81-lua-5.1.1-function.c.patch
Description: Binary data
Attachment:
make-3.81-lua-5.1.1-Makefile-Gentoo-Linux-2.6-ppc.patch
Description: Binary data
Attachment:
make-3.81-lua-5.1.1-Makefile.patch
Description: Binary data