Honestly, if I were to modify make for some custom behavior, I would look for another tool¹ or create yet another builder tool. Because although I already know most of the syntax, point #2 is an incredibly big problem, the GP missed point #4 in that make does not manage external dependencies², and the syntax is not bad only for learning, but for using too.
1 - Almost everybody seems to agree with me on this. The only problem is that we have all migrated to language constrained tools. This is a problem worth fixing.
2 - Wether it is installing them or simply testing if they are there, make can't do any. Hello autotools, with it syntax set to extreme cumbersomeness.
Make is about "making files." Or to be a little more semantically specific, Make is about "processes that transform files to make new files based upon their dependencies". It really doesn't matter that your file is a C source file, or some unpreprocessed CSS, or a template, or an AMI. To your AMI example, if you specify a dependency (or dependency chain, DAG) as a time-stamped (or set of) file, you can get make to rebuild the AME for you along with any other supporting or intermediate files.
IMO, the suckless guys are masters at writing deceptively complex but highly readable & concise Makefiles. Here's plan9 workalike utility library [0], a util-linux/busybox package of binaries [1], a window manager [2], a terminal emulator [3], and webkit2 based web browser [4]. I highly recommend you study them if you're looking to up your Make game.
[0] http://git.suckless.org/9base/tree/Makefile
[1] http://git.suckless.org/sbase/tree/Makefile
[2] http://git.suckless.org/dwm/tree/Makefile
I'm not saying you can't use make (we did use make before we switched to walk), it's just more painful for non C/C++ build systems. All we really want from a build systems, is a generic tool for describing, and walking, a graph of dependencies.
If you're careful (and even if you're not), loops in your dependency graph are usually a non-issue. And if you use a single `Makefile` it'll detect the circular dependency and try to ignore it.
Let's take an example processing Sass CSS files. You just need 2 folders in your project, `css/` and `scss/`, and a `Makefile` to process all your Sass files into CSS.
# Locate our source assets, save a list
SRC = $(shell ls scss/*.scss 2>/dev/null)
# Specify a filename transformation from scss to css and convert the SRC list
OUT = $(SRC:.scss=.css)
# Define rule of how a scss to css transformation is supposed to happen
css/%.css : scss/%.scss
sass $<:$@
# Make the `all` target depend on the OUT list
all : $(OUT)
It takes just 5 lines to teach `make` how process Sass files. This would process any `.scss` file you dropped in `scss/` and save it in `css/`.If you use @import in your scss file the css will not be rebuilt if only the imported file is modified.
So no. It does not take 5 lines to teach make how to build Sass. To solve this you either need to teach make about sass @import, or teach sass about make and let it generate makefiles (like gcc -MMd). Or simply just use sass --watch for incremental builds and take the recompile hit if you need to restart it for whatever reason.
(While I'm at it...Another thing missing from that makefile is source maps (.css.map) generated by the sass compiler. It's not only one css file being generated from each sass file. That will complicate the rules even further)
And yes, by that logic, `SRC = $(shell ls scss/*.scss)` is dumb. That is not lost upon me.
To fix the `.css.map` issue is simple. You can't use the pattern you've seen for yacc/bison, though. The `$@` var would have both files in it.
%.tab.c %.tab.h: %.y
bison -d $<
Instead, simply adjust the pattern to rule to be the functional equivalent: css/%.css : scss/%.scss
sass $<:$@
css/%.css.map : scss/%.scss
@touch $@ css/%.css : $(SRC) scss/%.scss
sass $<:$@
css/%.css.map : $(SRC) scss/%.scss
@touch $@Or teach a third-party tool to output a list of @imported files for a given Sass file. Then this list can be used as that Sass file's dependencies.