Paul,
Didn't you get that backwards?
Shouldn't it be that bar and its prerequistes are built after foo and
all its prerequisites?
Reid
> -Original Message-
> From: Paul Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul D. Smith
>
> I think the goal of this:
>
> all: foo .WAIT bar
> From: Paul Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul D. Smith
>> all: foo .WAIT bar
>>
>> foo: baz biz
>> bar: boz booz
>> would be that neither foo NOR any of its prerequisites would
>> be built until bar and all if its prerequisites were finished.
%% [EMAIL PROTECTED
Whoops, no I'm wrong.
The thing about order-only is it applies only to the top-level targets:
all: foo | bar
foo: baz biz
bar: boz booz
Here, foo will not be run until after "bar" is done. BUT, biz, baz,
boz, and booz can still all be run in parallel.
I think the goal of this:
(I don't think Reid is subscribed to the list so I added him back)
%% Boris Kolpackov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
bk> What happens if I have this makefile:
bk> foo: bar .WAIT baz
bk> fox: bar baz
Using my rules, bar and baz are built in parallel.
bk> When I say 'make fox' is serializa
"Paul D. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> rm> I'll admit that the processing of :: targets is a gray area, and
> rm> the .WAIT approach is the clearest solution.
>
> Well, clear_ER_ anyway.
There was a discussion on the idea of .WAIT some time ago on the help-make
mailing list (Subject: "
