You don't need to use the include statement. cat config.mk Makefile | make -f -
pmarin. On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Nick <suckless-...@njw.me.uk> wrote: > I was reading the opengroup specifications for make(1) recently[0], > and found that even our standard makefile practise of using 'include' > for config variables is nonstandard, as far as they're concerned. > Needless to say I think 'include' is a perfectly reasonable feature > to use, and it evidently works everywhere that people care about. > > But it got me thinking about what other features of make are worth > using. Basically because I'm replacing a autotools horrorshow with > plain make, but am not sure what the nicest way of allowing compile- > time feature disabling is. Can 'ifdef' be relied upon, and does it > tend to produce unreadable and buggy makefiles in anyone's > experience? Are there other options, beyond asking people to comment > out certain lines in a config.mk, to e.g. disable some LDFLAGS? > > I know switching to mk would solve all of my problems and give me > something standard and portable, but it would also be a dependency > which isn't as widely installed as make, which I'm not overly keen on. > > And also I generally agree that compile-time options are a bad plan, > but one fight at a time, eh? > > Nick > > 0. http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/make.html >
