On Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 3:31 AM Marko Rauhamaa <ma...@pacujo.net> wrote: > > Skip Montanaro <skip.montan...@gmail.com>: > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 1:24 PM Vitaly Potyarkin <sio....@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> What do you think of using Makefiles for automating common chores in > >> Python projects? Like linting, type checking and testing? > > > > Kinda unsure why this needs to be asked (says the guy who's used Make > > longer than Python and nearly as long as Emacs). :-) That said, I will > > answer in the affirmative. Make is a great tool. > > I can't agree that make is a great tool. It's a tool a slight step > better than unconditional build scripts, but it's really only suitable > for projects involving a single directory (although baffling heroics > have been achieved using GNU Make in particular). >
Really? I've used make with multi-directory projects many times. Also, like Grant, I use a Makefile to document some things. For simple projects, I use a Makefile to precompile, compile, and deploy, all governed by a master "all" phony target. When I'm working in SourcePawn, I have a Python script that reads my source file and generates an include file from it (because SP doesn't have metaprogramming facilities), and I might have a script that reads an entirely separate file that isn't even under my control, and parse that to create an include file. Then there's the actual compilation command, and finally deployment (which is unconditional). That's a lot of commands, some of them very easy to forget, involving files inside and outside the project directory... and all done with a single "make" command. SCons is massive overkill for the project I'm doing. Why introduce a dependency like that? Honestly, SCons can be a pain even with a gigantic project, and there's no way that I want to use it for simple automation. ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
