5 ms·

It's interesting how they list targets that have "practically become a convention", yet they're missing "all". I'm also intrigued by their claim they used @ in

by bartbes 12y ago

It's interesting how they list targets that have "practically become a convention", yet they're missing "all". I'm also intrigued by their claim they used @ in the recipes, yet they never did.

shazow 12y ago
> It's interesting how they list targets that have "practically become a convention", yet they're missing "all". I think what he means is that their Makefiles effectively start having a common API across projects, by having similar target names. No need to use "all" if you put the default target first (see `default` subsection in the post). > I'm also intrigued by their claim they used @ in the recipes, yet they never did. Yea seems that got stripped out. Still, this is a good practical example for using a Makefile. I'm a fan of this too.
- bartbes 12y ago
  I realise their standard probably doesn't include all, but it seems like the obvious choice. Maybe I've just been conditioned by autotools, but I think it's standard practice to have all be your default target.
  - shazow 12y ago
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ As long as running `make` does the Right Thing, does it matter if it does it via an `all` target or by defaulting to a different first target? I do agree that generally `all` is a common convention, though.
    - bartbes 12y ago
      It's really only relevant when specifying multiple targets, like 'make clean all', or the more common 'make all install'. It just seemed odd to me.
      - xyzzy_plugh 12y ago
        Why would you have `make all install' behave differently than `make install'? I'm imagining specifically when you have the install target present.
        Leszek 12y ago
        Because `make all install` would first build, then install, while `make install` would just do the installation, regardless of build state.
        ianstormtaylor 12y ago
        Why not have install do the build state, and then in most cases it wouldn't need to be run at all since the target would be up-to-date? Just curious. I usually structure my targets so that I can run `make test` immediately without having to know what all the random commands are to build/install.
        wtallis 12y ago
        Wouldn't any sane install target depend on the build products it seeks to install, and consequently build before installing?
- exDM69 12y ago
  > I think what he means is that their Makefiles effectively start having a common API across projects, by having similar target names. > No need to use "all" if you put the default target first (see `default` subsection in the post). That's obviously the reason they're doing that, but it's an odd decision. Especially since "all" is a common name for a Makefile target and .DEFAULT_GOAL can be used to override the "first target" convention of Makefiles. firsttarget: mysource.txt cp $< $@ .DEFAULT_GOAL=all # no need to put it first .PHONY: all all: firsttarget secondtarget secondtarget: touch $@
dominicbarnes 12y ago
Haha, whoops must've lost those @ during editing. They've been restored :)
- bartbes 12y ago
  Then I'd like to bring to your attention that you can have the @ come from a variable too, which means you can have conditionally silent files too. That always seemed to me like the perfect middle ground between silent compiles and knowing what's going on if things do fail.
  - groks 12y ago
    $ man make | grep -A2 silent -s, --silent, --quiet Silent operation; do not print the commands as they are executed.

by bartbes 12y ago

It's interesting how they list targets that have "practically become a convention", yet they're missing "all". I'm also intrigued by their claim they used @ in the recipes, yet they never did.

shazow 12y ago

> It's interesting how they list targets that have "practically become a convention", yet they're missing "all". I think what he means is that their Makefiles effectively start having a common API across projects, by having similar target names. No need to use "all" if you put the default target first (see `default` subsection in the post). > I'm also intrigued by their claim they used @ in the recipes, yet they never did. Yea seems that got stripped out. Still, this is a good practical example for using a Makefile. I'm a fan of this too.

bartbes 12y ago
I realise their standard probably doesn't include all, but it seems like the obvious choice. Maybe I've just been conditioned by autotools, but I think it's standard practice to have all be your default target.
- shazow 12y ago
  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ As long as running `make` does the Right Thing, does it matter if it does it via an `all` target or by defaulting to a different first target? I do agree that generally `all` is a common convention, though.
  - bartbes 12y ago
    It's really only relevant when specifying multiple targets, like 'make clean all', or the more common 'make all install'. It just seemed odd to me.
    - xyzzy_plugh 12y ago
      Why would you have `make all install' behave differently than `make install'? I'm imagining specifically when you have the install target present.
      - Leszek 12y ago
        Because `make all install` would first build, then install, while `make install` would just do the installation, regardless of build state.
        ianstormtaylor 12y ago
        Why not have install do the build state, and then in most cases it wouldn't need to be run at all since the target would be up-to-date? Just curious. I usually structure my targets so that I can run `make test` immediately without having to know what all the random commands are to build/install.
        wtallis 12y ago
        Wouldn't any sane install target depend on the build products it seeks to install, and consequently build before installing?
exDM69 12y ago
> I think what he means is that their Makefiles effectively start having a common API across projects, by having similar target names. > No need to use "all" if you put the default target first (see `default` subsection in the post). That's obviously the reason they're doing that, but it's an odd decision. Especially since "all" is a common name for a Makefile target and .DEFAULT_GOAL can be used to override the "first target" convention of Makefiles. firsttarget: mysource.txt cp $< $@ .DEFAULT_GOAL=all # no need to put it first .PHONY: all all: firsttarget secondtarget secondtarget: touch $@

dominicbarnes 12y ago

Haha, whoops must've lost those @ during editing. They've been restored :)

bartbes 12y ago
Then I'd like to bring to your attention that you can have the @ come from a variable too, which means you can have conditionally silent files too. That always seemed to me like the perfect middle ground between silent compiles and knowing what's going on if things do fail.
- groks 12y ago
  $ man make | grep -A2 silent -s, --silent, --quiet Silent operation; do not print the commands as they are executed.