Hey Kaz, thanks for pointing that out. I was primarily interested in GNU Makefiles only, but it's always good to have a broader perspective to make the tool more useful for others.
If I'm not mistaken, `$(RM)` doesn't always expand to `rm -f` but to something else like `delete/nolog` on VMS for example. See https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/make.git/tree/src/default.c line 457. So, there are two portability scenarios: * If the `Makefile` shall be portable to other make implementations, using `rm -f` directly or having `RM` defined as `RM?=rm -f` is the solution. * If the `Makefile` is a GNUMakefile that shall run on VMS as well, `$(RM)` should be used, and a definition. Both scenarios can be combined. I take this as feedback to improve the check. In POSIX mode, the check would only ensure that `rm -f` is used instead of `rm`. In Portability mode, the check would ensure that `$(RM)` is used instead of `rm` or `rm -f`. If both, POSIX and Portability, are asked for, the check would ensure that `$(RM)` is used and `RM` is defined with a conditional variable assignment. I've put this as an issue on the project: https://github.com/christianhujer/makelint/issues/1 Thanks again for the feedback. Best regards, Christian On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 8:57 PM Kaz Kylheku (gmake) <729-670-0...@kylheku.com> wrote: > > On 2021-04-02 00:55, Christian Hujer wrote: > > Hello everyone. > > > > I was looking for a Lint-like tool for Makefiles. > > The ones I could find either seemed abandoned (like mint) or had a > > broken build (checkmake) and other fundamental flaws (not operating on > > included Makefiles). > > I hope to get some responses on this list here for more tools that > > people have created. > > Because I couldn't find one that works for me, I created one. > > > > The first two checks implemented are, which isn't much but at least a > > start: > > • Report direct usage of `rm` (should use `$(RM)` instead). > > Note that POSIX doesn't specify any RM variable. > > Look for the "Default Rules" section here > > https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/make.html > > > This one > > was the reason for writing this tool, a dev had used rm instead of > > $(RM) in clean, causing it to fail on consecutive runs. > > The actual bug was not using "rm -f". I see that RM gives you that: > > $ make -p | grep '^RM =' > RM = rm -f > > Since this is nonstandard though, it would behoove you to define it > yourself, or at least weakly with ?= > > RM ?= rm -f > > Unless you are sure that your Makefile is strictly GNU Make. > > Aliases for common utilities that are quite portable, and are not > toolchain components don't make a whole lot of sense, IMHO. > > If we are cross-compiling, the build machine's "rm" should work just > fine for removing something in a build directory, or even target > sysroot; we have no reason to be putting a cross toolchain prefix > onto rm or anything like that. > > If it was the case that some versions of "rm" don't have the "-f" > option (and it is implied), yet other versions of "rm" require > it, then the abstraction would be valuable. > > But "rm" and "rm -f" are standardized by POSIX, like make itself. > A Makefile that uses "rm -f ..." in a recipe line can be > entirely POSIX conforming. -- Christian Hujer CEO/CTO Nelkinda Software Craft Pvt Ltd 📧 Christian Hujer | 🐦 @nelkinda | 🌐 http://nelkinda.com ☏ 🇮🇳 ✆ +91 77 2003 6661
