On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 16:02:15 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
> I get that having a make that "does everying right out of the box" is
> seductive, but I'm not on board at this point.
I actually don't care about whether or not it's "in the box" of make.
I care about making it easy to perform the check.
On Tue, 2019-06-11 at 22:09 -0400, David A. Wheeler wrote:
> Basically, when running a rule, make could enable strace to see
> what is *actually* getting checked/read & written, compare that to
> what the rule *claims* are the prerequisites & targets, and then
> complain about differences.
At
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 19:22:09 +0100, Tim Murphy wrote:
> If you use strace to detect dependencies you might have to do a thorough
> patent search. I will say no more because it's not my place to.
The odds of an *enforceable* patent on strace seem extremely remote from
the information I could
In this context it might be worth mentioning two projects of mine, one
simple/lightweight and the other complex and semi-abandoned. I will not
describe them here in detail because the links do so.
1. Poor Man's File Auditor (https://github.com/boyski/pmaudit)
This is a lightweight, unambitious,
If you use strace to detect dependencies you might have to do a thorough
patent search. I will say no more because it's not my place to.
Regards
Tim
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019, 03:09 David A. Wheeler, wrote:
> Problem:
>
> Makefiles often have errors, and they lay dormant because they're
>
Problem:
Makefiles often have errors, and they lay dormant because they're undetected.
On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 07:44:31 -0700, wrote:
> Considering that many build systems created with Make do not properly
> perform incremental builds (because all the necessary rules are not
> written, or are
