[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: MAKEFLAGS (Was: forcing a rule)
From: |
Boris Kolpackov |
Subject: |
Re: MAKEFLAGS (Was: forcing a rule) |
Date: |
Fri, 2 Apr 2004 14:01:54 -0600 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.4i |
Hi Noel,
> It's also just occurred to me that, using MAKEFILES and the "gmake self
> wrapper" trick, you could get what you want without having to patch make.
> OTOH, it is a bit more complicated even though the complication is hidden.
How is it hidden? In every makefile you have two write something like
this:
if <MAKEFLAGS need adjustment>
include make-re-executor.make
else
# your code here
endif
This is ugly. If I needed this feature in a project that otherwise
uses vanilla make I would think twice before patching make. But in
my case Rubicon is already crossed.
-boris
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
- forcing a rule, Noel Yap, 2004/04/01
- Re: forcing a rule, Boris Kolpackov, 2004/04/02
- Re: forcing a rule, Noel Yap, 2004/04/02
- Re: forcing a rule, Boris Kolpackov, 2004/04/02
- Re: forcing a rule, Noel Yap, 2004/04/02
- Re: forcing a rule, Boris Kolpackov, 2004/04/02
- Re: forcing a rule, Noel Yap, 2004/04/02
- Re: forcing a rule, Boris Kolpackov, 2004/04/02
- Re: MAKEFLAGS (Was: forcing a rule), Noel Yap, 2004/04/02
- Re: MAKEFLAGS (Was: forcing a rule),
Boris Kolpackov <=
- Re: MAKEFLAGS (Was: forcing a rule), Noel Yap, 2004/04/02
- Re: MAKEFLAGS (Was: forcing a rule), Boris Kolpackov, 2004/04/02
- Re: MAKEFLAGS (Was: forcing a rule), Noel Yap, 2004/04/02
- Re: MAKEFLAGS (Was: forcing a rule), Boris Kolpackov, 2004/04/02
- Re: MAKEFLAGS (Was: forcing a rule), Noel Yap, 2004/04/02
- Re: MAKEFLAGS (Was: forcing a rule), Noel Yap, 2004/04/02
- Re: MAKEFLAGS (Was: forcing a rule), Boris Kolpackov, 2004/04/04
- Re: MAKEFLAGS (Was: forcing a rule), Noel Yap, 2004/04/14
- Re: MAKEFLAGS (Was: forcing a rule), Boris Kolpackov, 2004/04/14
- Re: MAKEFLAGS (Was: forcing a rule), Noel Yap, 2004/04/14