Re: forcing a rule

[Paul D. Smith]

%% Boris Kolpackov <address@hidden> writes:

  >> I don't suppose it should break any existing makefiles, either.

  bk> I haven't encountered any yet even though I used make with this
  bk> patch to run, let's say, very unusual build systems found (to name
  bk> a few) in linux kernel, glibc and ACE/TAO.

It would break any makefile that needed a literal "$" in the
prerequisites list.  Whether that is significant or not I don't know.
It seems unlikely but then again make runs on lots of different
platforms, and works with programs that have lots of different naming
conventions.

  >> I understand that Paul has put a hold on any new functions since
  >> he's trying to get Guile as _the_ scripting language within
  >> makefiles so I can understand why lastword, useful as it is, didn't
  >> make the cut.

  bk> Well, you are lucky that you understand. When I submitted the
  bk> patch I wasn't aware of any guile plans and a comment from Paul
  bk> explaining this would have been in order, don't you think?

I send messages to this effect at least once a month.  If you were
subscribed to any of the GNU make mailing lists, or looked through any
of the mailing list archives, you'd certainly have seen them.  I know
you're not subscribed because I'm continually having to approve your
posts to the lists...

I'm sorry your mail got lost in the shuffle and not replied to.  I try
to respond to everything but sometimes it happens.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Paul D. Smith <address@hidden>          Find some GNU make tips at:
 http://www.gnu.org                      http://make.paulandlesley.org
 "Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist