On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 00:08:45 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Alvord) wrote:
>This is a gnu make 3.79.1, freshly gotten from the archives - date was
>June 2000 if I remember. I am work on upgrading from 3.75 to 3.79.1.
>There were a few small repairs needed, but it mostly looks OK.
>This is on NT 4,
On Mon, 2 Apr 2001 20:29:20 -0400, "Paul D. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>%% [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Alvord) writes:
>
> ja> This is a gnu make 3.79.1, freshly gotten from the archives - date was
> ja> June 2000 if I remember. I am work on upgrading from 3.75 to 3.79.1.
> ja> There were a
%% [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Alvord) writes:
ja> This is a gnu make 3.79.1, freshly gotten from the archives - date was
ja> June 2000 if I remember. I am work on upgrading from 3.75 to 3.79.1.
ja> There were a few small repairs needed, but it mostly looks OK.
ja> This is on NT 4, using sh.e
This is a gnu make 3.79.1, freshly gotten from the archives - date was
June 2000 if I remember. I am work on upgrading from 3.75 to 3.79.1.
There were a few small repairs needed, but it mostly looks OK.
This is on NT 4, using sh.exe for a command shell.
Given the following makefile
test:
