On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Paul D. Smith wrote:
> %% <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> n> if (lookup_file (p) != 0 ||
> n> ((!dep->changed || check_lastslash) && file_exists_p (p)))
>
> I'll look at this more closely.
Thanks. Another thing I forgot: if you ask make to make that target
directly, it will do so, which makes the problem much more confusing.
> n> Ideally it would be possible to tell make that the date on some
> n> targets is never important, rather than using the --old-file=
> n> parameter anytime it changes.
>
> You can do this in the next version of GNU make. There is a feature
> which allows you to declare a dependency for ordering purposes only, but
> which doesn't impact the rebuild/don't rebuild decision (the update time
> is ignored).
Cool. :) Does it build the target if it doesn't exist at all? (--old-file=
doesn't in 3.78, which I find odd: is assumes the file exists as well as
being really old)
Will you also be able get to the -r effect from inside the Makefile?
> Nevertheless, I think this is not an elegant way of handling this
> problem. I still feel it's too much work (and looks messy as well) to
> declare the directory as a prerequisite to every single target.
I agree if it's for every single target, but I like it when it's only for
a small set of the targets, like:
dist:
mkdir -p dist
dist/%: % dist
cp $< $@
dist.tar: dist/foo dist/bar
tar -cf $@ dist
That way you only get the directory when you're actually going to need it.
> >> _foo := $(shell [ -d dir/subdir ] || mkdir -p dir/subdir)
>
> n> It would be nice if the documentation suggested that...
>
> I thought I had added this to the docs, actually, but I don't see it
> now. Either I dreamed it or I added it somewhere else.
Glad to know, at least, that I wasn't just failing to read it. :)
-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*
_______________________________________________
Bug-make mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
