Common makefile (gasp) stuff

[Daniel Murphy via Digitalmars-d]

"Andrei Alexandrescu"  wrote in message 
news:m95ds3$2vm4$1 at digitalmars.com...

> I agree that make sucks etc. but duplication sucks more (and would suck 
> regardless of what tool we use). Here we do have a simple method (include 
> files) that is suitable for addressing that. I'd assume we'd use something 
> similar with whichever tool we'd use.

I don't mind using include files, I mind adding more dependencies between 
projects.

> Great. As an aside I just ran that and got:
>
> error: unknown option `rebase'
> usage: ...

Maybe it's 'git pull --rebase upstream master', I didn't try it and I don't 
type it manually very often because I have a script to do this.

> Whether it's a command or a couple, that doesn't change the fact that I 
> need to run the same command four times, and in parallel if at all 
> possible. It's a perfect candidate for automation, and I haven't seen an 
> argument the makefile isn't a good place for that.

I guess we have different usage patterns, which isn't really a surprise. 
Anyway putting rebase in the makefile is a secondary issue, that's probably 
not worth discussing now.

> > I've managed to get by fine with using shell scripts for stuff like 
> > this.
>
> Do you need to upload the dlang.org website quickly and without error?

Do enough people need to that it warrants being in the makefile instead of a 
local shell script?  Does everyone do it the same way?

> Overall I have difficulty understanding counterarguments.
>
> Challenge: "We should eliminate some unpleasant duplication."
>
> Response: "Make sucks. Make includes are unreliable for mythical 
> unexplained reasons. You don't know git. You should do scripts instead."
>
> The response just doesn't follow. Care to clarify what you think we should 
> be doing here?

Apologies for not being clear.

Challenge: "We should eliminate some unpleasant duplication."

Response:  "We should avoid adding more dependencies between projects at all 
costs."