>> My pattern example does not work with the current make software in the
>> way I hoped would be occasionally convenient.
>
> No it does not. Did you read my entire previous answer?
Yes. - I replied to it twice with different information.
Regards,
Markus
___
On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 13:20:23 +0200
SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > It would have been generated if you would have called make with a
> > command like:
>
> elfring@Sonne:~/Projekte/Bau> LANG=C make --no-builtin-rules -f
> ../rule-check2.make MOTD.log make: *** No rule to make target
> 'MOTD.log'. S
> It would have been generated if you would have called make with a command
> like:
elfring@Sonne:~/Projekte/Bau> LANG=C make --no-builtin-rules -f
../rule-check2.make MOTD.log
make: *** No rule to make target 'MOTD.log'. Stop.
> LANG=C make --no-builtin-rules -f ../rule-check2.make MOTD.log
On Sun, 2017-06-18 at 17:14 +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > It would have been generated if you would have called make with a
> > command like:
> > LANG=C make --no-builtin-rules -f ../rule-check2.make MOTD.log
>
> I hoped that I do not need to specify another file name for such command
> var
> It would have been generated if you would have called make with a
> command like:
> LANG=C make --no-builtin-rules -f ../rule-check2.make MOTD.log
I hoped that I do not need to specify another file name for such command variant
just to test a special default setting.
> and if you had a rule to
On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 13:03:10 +0200
SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> I have tried the following small script out together with the program
> âGNU Make 4.2.1-1.7â on my openSUSE Tumbleweed system.
That "script" seems like a makefile to me.
> my_compilation?=echo
> my_preparation?=cat
> footer?=MOT
