Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > Well, this scheme can easily be generalized to one stamp file per set of > output files, no? And then it parallelizes well, too.
Yes, I suppose if you named the stamp with a filename derivable from that of the .xml filename you could generalize this without having to write 'n' copies of the rule. That would be a better way. That brings up the next logical point, can anyone comment on the feasibility of some kind of generalized "tool X reads A and outputs Y and Z" construct to help solve the "tools generating multiple outputs" case without having to emit big ugly stamp rules in Makefile.am or resorting the GNUmake-isms? Brian
