Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Managing Projects with GNU Make

Posted by michael on from the making-trouble dept.

sarumont writes "Every Open Source developer uses or has used GNU make at some point or another. Everyone who has ever compiled a piece of Open Source software has used GNU's make. So what exactly is GNU make and how does it work? The 3rd Edition of 'Managing Projects with GNU Make' tells you all about using GNU make and more."

3 of 49 comments (clear)

  1. Re:SCons is much better than GNU Make by slamb · · Score: 4, Interesting

    SCons remembers the command line used to compile/build a given file, so it automatically figures out that it should rebuild that file if the command line arguments change. With Make it is very difficult to do that, so "make clean" is used much more often than it should be needed.

    There are a couple other reasons "make clean" is used more often than it should:

    • Generating proper dependencies from source is a pain. SCons does this automatically for all of the built-in builders (notably including C/C++), and it has infrastructure for making your user-supplied builders do the same.
    • Most makefile setups are recursive. They should not be (see Recursive Make Considered Harmful for a good explanation). It's a pain to make non-recursive make, because the tools aren't set up for it. SCons is.

    SCons is written in Python, and the SConstruct files it uses analagously to Makefiles are fundamentally Python scripts

    ...which is wonderful. The thing about make is that you have to be familiar with so many different syntaxes and APIs to do the simplest thing. There's the shell + make + m4 + autoconf's libraries (workarounds for non-portable shell utilities) + automake's libraries. It's a huge pain, because there's not a single place to look things up. You have to find the appropriate shell utility...then check in the autoconf/automake documentation to see if there are portability wrappers. scons is simpler; you can find most stuff with just their manpage, and possibly Python's documentation when you need to do actual programming in the build system. One (very simple) syntax. Two sources of API documentation.

    The autoconf/automake system is nice in that it makes no assumptions about the user's system beyond make - everything is just generated to plain shell scripts and makefiles. But it's such a pain for the developer that it's not worth it. SCons assumes the user has a working Python installation, which makes everything more pleasant. Python provides the same level of functionality with the same interface on every platform.

  2. Newer and better alternatives to make by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting
    There are newer and much better alternatives to make.


    1. boost-build v2 is the absolute BEST if you want to build C/C++ projects with multiple compilers & versions & targets--or even on simple projects that require a one-liner to feed into boost-build2 (normally taking 5-20 lines in GNU make).


    Upside for boost-build2? Wraps compiler/linker flags in a generic language for many compilers and versions(gcc, msvc, bcc, etc). Also very easy for simple projects but truly shines on huge and complex projects. Jamfiles can inherit properties , requirements, targets, etc. from parent directories. Very very cool.


    Downside to boost-build? Documentation truly sucks compared to other tools. Docs getting better but new users should prepare to unexpectedly find features they could've used to avoid hours of effort.


    Boost-build v2 uses bjam but there seems to be a plan to add support for Python.


    2. Scons is the next best thing to boost-build v2. The underlying language is Python but you don't have to be a Python expert to use it. And the documentation is much better than boost-build v2. However, it takes many more lines to get things done than boost-build v2 (which isn't all that bad considering boost-build v2 can do things in only 5 lines to replace a 40-line gnu makefile).


    3. rake is a make-alternative written in Ruby. For all you recent Ruby converts, be sure to check it out. I love Ruby but I gotta admit, I don't see anything out there being better than boost-build v2 today.


    GNU make served us well but it is time to move on to better choices that make us more productive. Just like cvs having served us well but svn and others being a better choice today.

  3. Re:SCons is much better than GNU Make by eraserewind · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Most makefile setups are recursive. They should not be (see Recursive Make Considered Harmful for a good explanation). It's a pain to make non-recursive make, because the tools aren't set up for it. SCons is.
    This is my biggest (but not only) problem with GNU Make. It does not have support for the theoretically correct way to use it. It's not like the paper is new, or even that the maintainer disagrees with it's findings, but there is no movement at all to add support for the features that would make it easy to use. GNU Make is a project that is totally defined by it's implementation. There is no concept of a "correct" way is should be behaving. There is only the way it behaves.