On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 01:25:59PM -0700, Philip Guenther wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Jul 2017, Marc Espie wrote:
> > This is a very slight deviation from posix rules, but not in spirit. My
> > interpretation is that posix rules describe the intent of the make rules
> > (produce a file in such a way), but
On Wed, 5 Jul 2017, Marc Espie wrote:
> This is a very slight deviation from posix rules, but not in spirit. My
> interpretation is that posix rules describe the intent of the make rules
> (produce a file in such a way), but don't really care about intermediate
> names.
...
> .l.c:
> - ${LE
On Wed, 05 Jul 2017 14:55:00 +0200, Marc Espie wrote:
> Sure thing. apart from that, okay ?
OK millert@
- todd
On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 06:49:30AM -0600, Todd C. Miller wrote:
> I wonder if it would be better to use lex.${.PREFIX}.c instead of
> ${.PREFIX}.lex.c. This would be more consistent with how lex's
> -Pprefix flag behaves.
>
> It's not a big deal either way as the file is strictly temporary.
>
>
I wonder if it would be better to use lex.${.PREFIX}.c instead of
${.PREFIX}.lex.c. This would be more consistent with how lex's
-Pprefix flag behaves.
It's not a big deal either way as the file is strictly temporary.
- todd
This is a very slight deviation from posix rules, but not in spirit.
My interpretation is that posix rules describe the intent of the make
rules (produce a file in such a way), but don't really care about
intermediate names.
FreeBSD already has something like this in tree (though they use
lex >$@
