%% "Andy Voelkel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
av> The main thing I noticed is the built-in dependency scanner for
av> source code. That would be a welcome addition to GNU make. OPUS
av> had it, and it will be missed.
You can get automated dependency scanning with GNU make, it just doesn't
c
%% Noel Yap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
ny> "Paul D. Smith" wrote:
>> accurate: for example GNU make has had support for distributed builds
>> for a long time (at least on UNIX platforms), but it requires linking in
>> a 3rd party library (free, but not provided with GNU make).
ny> I d
>%% "J. Grant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> jg> I have been reading about Lucent nmake
> jg> (http://www.bell-labs.com/project/nmake/). It looks interesting,
> jg> they use a different rule format, and include a preprocessor.
> jg> There is a comparison to GNU make
> jg> (http://www.bell-
"Paul D. Smith" wrote:
> accurate: for example GNU make has had support for distributed builds
> for a long time (at least on UNIX platforms), but it requires linking in
> a 3rd party library (free, but not provided with GNU make).
I didn't know about this. Can you provide a URL?
Thanks,
Noel
%% "J. Grant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
jg> I have been reading about Lucent nmake
jg> (http://www.bell-labs.com/project/nmake/). It looks interesting,
jg> they use a different rule format, and include a preprocessor.
jg> There is a comparison to GNU make
jg> (http://www.bell-labs.com
Hello,
I have been reading about Lucent nmake
(http://www.bell-labs.com/project/nmake/). It looks interesting, they
use a different rule format, and include a preprocessor. There is a
comparison to GNU make
(http://www.bell-labs.com/project/nmake/faq/gmake.html). I was
wondering if GNU mak
%% toby cabot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
tc> The item reads: "Add features to GNU Make to record the precise rule
tc> with which each file was last recompiled; then recompile any file if
tc> its rule in the makefile has changed."
tc> I'm inclined to think that this item is so old that it
After a little more digging, it looks like mf1 "works" because it's the first rule
that gets triggered, not the second. Unfortunately, in my particular case, having the
first rule triggered will cause the wrong action to take place.
Here's what I see with "gmake -npqr":
# Implicit Rules
../in
I'm getting the following output:
$ ls -ld ../install/common/.
drwxr-x---5 yapn morgan 96 Nov 9 16:52 ../install/common/./
$ ls -ld ../install/common/make/.:
ls: ../install/common/make/.\:: No such file or directory
$ cat mf2
install.DIR := ../install
$(install.DIR)/common/%
