Re: Target-specific variable in subdirectory problem

[Sven C. Dack]

No. You're mistake is to assume to know what he wants from looking at 
his Makefile when you also know it's not working for him. You cannot 
know what it is he wants when he apparently fails to express it in a 
Makefile. So you're still only assuming. You base your assumption on the 
fact that he puts the assignment into a prerequisite. I'm basing mine on 
the assumption that he wants an identical behaviour for two different 
targets.

It doesn't make your guess better (or worse) than mine. It's up to 
Benjamin to tell us. It's not up to you nor me. So let's be fair here.

What I meant by saying that you didn't respond is that you didn't 
respond to his initial e-mail containing his problem, but that you 
hopped onto my response, second-guessed me, told me I'm wrong when 
really it's just an opinion you're having, and yet still haven't given 
any solution to what you think he wants to do. You've basically just 
lectured him about what he cannot have.

That's why I gave him an example. It will help him to decide what it is 
he wants and to be clearer about his intention. Perhaps you're right and 
whatever he wants to do isn't going to work with make, but until then 
it's best to keep an open mind, to stay positive and to try to find 
something that might work for him and not tell each other whose wrong 
and right.

Cheers



On 02/08/17 21:36, Paul Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-08-02 at 21:16 +0100, Sven C. Dack wrote:
> > I suggest you turn your attention towards him and ask him what he
> > wants.
> The example in his question makes very clear what he wants: he wants a
> pattern-specific variable assignment.
>
> The solution you provided was not a pattern-specific variable
> assignment.  It was an abstracted way of writing a global variable
> assignment.
>
> > My example does exactly what I say it does. It's just not your place
> > to tell me I'm wrong when you don't know what he wants his makefile
> > to do and so far haven't responded to him and only to me.
> First, I did respond to him and I explained exactly why his example
> wasn't working the way he anticipated.
>
> Second, we don't need to ask him more about what he wants the makefile
> to do, because the intent of the question is self-evident.
>
> Finally, I didn't intend any attack.  I'm just explaining how the
> example you gave works and why it doesn't meet the OPs request.  It's
> not personal.  Indeed in your original message it seemed like you
> weren't familiar with pattern-specific variables so I provided more
> context.
>
> > Or am I missing something? We are all adults here, right?
> Is that a trick question?