On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 10:30:59 +0000 Ron Yorston <r...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Boris wrote: > >Sure, to avoid any confusion I would't use the name "Makefile". > >"Minimake" sounds clear to me, and the cli `mim`. > > I like the command name 'mim' (which Merriam-Webster tells me is an > adjective meaning 'affectedly shy or modest'). By extension I think the > file should be called 'Mimfile'. This avoids any misleading reference to > make. As Eli correctly points out (and I should have) the script misses > the main distinguishing feature of make, that it handles dependencies. > > I've tidied up the script a bit. Its usage is: > > mim [-f FILE] [SHELL_OPTIONS] [TARGET] ... > Other implementation that converts the "targets" to shell functions: --- mim -------- #!/bin/sh sed -E -e '/^[a-z]+:$/,/^$/{ /^[a-z]/s/:$/() \{/ s/^$/\}/ }' -e '$a for i; do $i; done' Mimfile | sh -e -s "$@" ----------------- This will run all specified targets instead of passing options. (I'm still not convinced it is a good idea to add this to busybox) -nc _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox