Make - module for processing makefiles
require Make; my $make = Make->new(...); $make->parse($file); $make->Script(@ARGV) $make->Make(@ARGV) $make->Print(@ARGV) my $targ = $make->Target($name); $targ->colon([dependancy...],[command...]); $targ->dolon([dependancy...],[command...]); my @depends = $targ->colon->depend; my @commands = $targ->colon->command;
Make->new creates an object if
new(Makefile => $file) is specified
then it is parsed. If not the usual makefile Makefile sequence is
used. (If GNU => 1 is passed to new then GNUmakefile is looked for first.)
$make->Make(target...) 'makes' the target(s) specified
(or the first 'real' target in the makefile).
$make->Print can be used to 'print' to current
a form of the makefile with all variables expanded.
$make->Script(target...) can be used to 'print' to
select'ed stream the equivalent bourne shell script
that a make would perform i.e. the output of
There are other methods (used by parse) which can be used to add and manipulate targets and their dependants. There is a hierarchy of classes which is still evolving. These classes and their methods will be documented when they are a little more stable.
The syntax of makefile accepted is reasonably generic, but I have not re-read any documentation yet, rather I have implemented my own mental model of how make works (then fixed it...).
In addition to traditional
.c.o : $(CC) -c ...
GNU make's 'pattern' rules e.g.
%.o : %.c $(CC) -c ...
Likewise a subset of GNU makes $(function arg...) syntax is supported.
Via pmake Make has built perl/Tk from the
MakeMaker generated Makefiles...
new must always find a makefile, and
$make->parse($file) can only be used to augment that file.
More attention needs to be given to using the package to write makefiles.
The rules for matching 'dot rules' e.g. .c.o and/or pattern rules e.g. %.o : %.c are suspect. For example give a choice of .xs.o vs .xs.c + .c.o behaviour seems a little odd.
Variables are probably substituted in different 'phases' of the process than in make(1) (or even GNU make), so 'clever' uses will probably not work.