Follow-up Comment #4, bug #66073 (group make):
> Maybe the comment intended to use "foo.r" instead?
Right, I meant "foo.r" instead of "foo.q". Sorry for confusion.
> For example if I use the original description and touch foo.p / bar.p first,
then I see the "undesired" behavior for both explici
Follow-up Comment #3, bug #66073 (group make):
I don't understand why the previous comment is talking about foo.q. In what
way would it ever be correct for foo.q to appear in "$?"? foo.q is one of the
targets and "$?" lists the out of date prerequisites.
Maybe the comment intended to use "foo.r
