Originally posted by mkrupcale
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Goals: Red Hat Developer Working On New Tool To Improve Upon Make
Collapse
X
-
- Likes 1
-
Originally posted by juarezr View Post
Also it's not clear but maybe it will come with dependencies to OCaml and Perl. This will just stress the developer system setup already crowded with libraries and version requirements.- NIH ?
- YABT ?
I read a book to learn make, and within a week I was writing Make files, while gritting with the white spaces.
With CMake, I cannot even find a decent book or decent documentation to write CMake files. Almost like it was given to the open source coding community with strings attached from proprietary software vendors.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
Neither can I, but I did say "If Goals can be a drop in replacement". IF is the keyword.
I was also wondering about the dependencies requirement too.
I also saw that "I hope it's like Cargo" post and thought to myself: "Iz you a tard?" due to all the places and languages that make is expected to work with.
It does aim to solve shell and scripting issues without requiring people to know about hacks like .PHONY and whatnot. If it can do that while acting as a drop-in replacement, then it is worth the effort and will have mine and a lot of other's gratitude. There's another IF there.
What I think about? Let's not go there
It would be wonderful IF, but I think that is NOT !!!!
Leave a comment:
-
GNU make is quite featureful, ubiquitous, free, and most importantly, thoroughly debugged. Any deficiencies can easily be addressed with a meta-make utility that generates a makefile, and then calls make. I wrote one myself about 20 years ago as a bash script, and use it to this day with minor upgrades over the years. It makes trivial the building of multiple versions of executables, libraries, and directory hierarchies from a single meta-make file which is actually just the top portion of a GNU makefile.
It's almost always better to build on proven infrastructure than to reimplement.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by rwmj View PostTo answer a few questions:
It's an experimental tool designed to explore new directions for a make-like tool. It absolutely does not work like the other tools people have mentioned. Free software continues to get better by people doing experiments, and we see what works and what doesn't work. Maybe goals won't work, in which case I'll have wasted a few weeks over Christmas. Maybe it'll be picked up in another tool. Maybe goals will become incredibly successful and displace those other tools (this is very unlikely). I'd advise people to actually watch the video, by comparing the tool to CMake and meson - which is literally mentioned in the first slide of the video - it shows you didn't do that.
Why not modify "make"? The syntax is totally different and has to be that way in order to solve the problems that make has. No such change would be acceptable to make.
The code is fully open source. The license is GPLv2.
I've been using the following method for large projects.- make -> build -> docker -> dependency & compilation
- make -> test -> docker -> unit and mock tests
- (optional) make -> integration tests
- make -> publish
I agree with you, Make really has some tricky gotchas but it is a really good tool overall. Good luck with Goals!
- Likes 2
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by jason.oliveira View Post
That guy stuck in a "get off my lawn" mentality is complaining about people not looking at his bug reports and then closing them after a rewrite, he is not against rewrites.
If someone rewrote stuff and checked that his bug was not present anymore it would be called refactoring and that's what serious projects do and it's perfectly OK.
Also I'll tell you that he is an idiot if he seriously thinks issues that plagued humanity since the beginning of time are only of younger people. This extends on you too of course.
- Likes 2
Leave a comment:
-
They can just use PkgSrc make https://opensource.com/article/19/11...c-netbsd-linux
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by jason.oliveira View Post
Leave a comment:
-
Is it gonna compile faster than ninja? If yes, can you prove it? If not, why care?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by starshipeleven View PostWhy work on 40 year old codebase if you can avoid it? Make isn't a kernel.
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: