Sime makelike wrapper scripts support

[Boris Kotov]

So, here are the docs

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│            MM   MM   MIMMIM   MM   MM            │
│            I I I I     II     I I I I            │
│            M  M  M   MIMMIM   M  M  M            │
├──────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ # Mimfile - the complete guide, design & spec    │
│                                                  │
│                     ┌──────────────────────────┐ │
│                     │ global script on top     │ │
│ projectname="mim"   │ variables date time etc. │ │
│ echo "running mim"  │ runs on every mim        │ │
│                     └──────────────────────────┘ │
│                     ┌──────────────────────────┐ │
│ hello:              │ task_name+colon whitespac│ │
│                     ├──────────────────────────┤ │
│ echo $projectname   │ script under the taskname│ │
│                     │ runs only for this task  │ │
│                     └──────────────────────────┘ │
│                           ┌────────────────────┐ │
│ learn:                    │more tasks...       │ │
│                           │                    │ │
│ echo learn $projectname   │                    │ │
│                           │--------------------│ │
│                           │become a certif. mim│ │
│                           │engineer in 7 steps │ │
│                           │...                 │ │
│                           └────────────────────┘ │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────┘


Am 14.01.20 um 23:03 schrieb James Bowlin:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 09:29 PM, Laurent Bercot said:
>>    Now, am I talking to software engineers, or do I really have to
>> explain *why* the value of the project decreases with every useless
>> additional applet, *even when* there is a configuration switch that
>> can disable it at build time?
> I don't disagree.  But the problem is much worse.
>
> IMO the problem with adding mini-make or mim to launch scripts is
> that "make" is not at all simple and easy to understand and it is
> 100% unclear which features will be supported in mini-make and
> which not.  So it is basically creating a 3rd, crippled, language
> which no one but the authors understand.
>
> Further it is a big mistake to encourage people to use the wrong
> tool for a job especially when the right tool is available and
> is POSIX (or extended) shell scripting.
>
> If we go in this direction then people will try to use mini-make
> on real Makefiles and it will crash and burn and will cause a slew
> of justified bug reports.
>
> The original idea was perfectly terrible because it is horribly
> broken.  For example:
>
>      $ touch hello ; make hello
>      make: 'hello' is up to date
>
> It is a very bad idea to encourage this misuse of tools for the
> sake of letting some folks avoid learning the rudiments of shell
> scripting.  Using "make" to launch random scripts is a really bad
> idea unless you really know what you're doing or you need some of
> the features of "make" (see above).  Creating a tool that
> implements less than 1% of "make" to enshrine this bad behavior is
> even worse.
>
>
> Peace, James
> _______________________________________________
> busybox mailing list
> busybox at busybox.net
> http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/attachments/20200115/9577f5dd/attachment.html>