[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Expanded rules for scripts
From: |
Bernard Dautrevaux |
Subject: |
RE: Expanded rules for scripts |
Date: |
Fri, 15 Dec 2000 16:41:37 +0100 |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Akim Demaille [mailto:address@hidden
> Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 3:45 PM
> To: Bernard Dautrevaux
> Cc: 'Pavel Roskin'; Alexandre Oliva; address@hidden
> Subject: Re: Expanded rules for scripts
>
>
>
> | > > .sh: configure.in
> | > > # do sth
> | >
> | > Even GNU make would not let you do it.
> |
> | This is indeed definitely wrong and I don't know of any
> make where I've seen
> | this working but, to be honest, discovering once it was not
> working I
> | stopped trying :-)
>
> I must be missing something: why is it that clear it's wrong?
Mainly because ALL make refuse it, and that about all make documentation say
something like (cited from GNU make doc):
Suffix rules cannot have any dependencies of their own. If they
have any, they are treated as normal files with funny names, not as
suffix rules.
To achieve what ".sh: configure.in" seems to want to do you must use pattern
rules, like "%: %.sh configure.in", but this is non-portable so Autoconf
can't use it.
The main reason why ".sh: configure.in" is clearly wrong is that otherwise I
would have NO way to create an EXPLICIT rule to build some "hidden" file
named for example ".make.depend" if it happens make knows the ".make" and
".depend" suffixes ;-(
I know this is not so common, but it happens (BTW the .make.depend was
causing me problems for some time before I realize I had to put an explicit
dependant if I don't want to have make interpret it as a suffix rule in an
environment where make had, I don't know why, a .make suffix defined...)
>
> | > > .sh: configure.in
> | > > # do sth
> | > > autoconf.sh: some-other-dependency
> | >
> | > This was used in Autoconf.
> |
> | Are you sure? the ".sh: configure.in" dependency bothers me...
>
> Nope, I meant
>
> > .sh:
> > # do sth
> > autoconf.sh: some-other-dependency
>
> sorry for the confusion. That's to what Pavel answered actually.
>
Yep, I was thinking so :)
Regards,
Bernard
--------------------------------------------
Bernard Dautrevaux
Microprocess Ingenierie
97 bis, rue de Colombes
92400 COURBEVOIE
FRANCE
Tel: +33 (0) 1 47 68 80 80
Fax: +33 (0) 1 47 88 97 85
e-mail: address@hidden
address@hidden
--------------------------------------------