Daniel Moerner wrote: > On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 10:24 PM, Felipe Sateler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Daniel Moerner wrote: >> >>> Incidentally, this makefile seems to >>> have some problems with it (it has an empty clean: target, and no >>> .PHONY even though some rules don't create files with their names, >>> like the clean: target). >> >> And why would that be a problem? >> > > I was under the impression that it's always good practice to have a > .PHONY target in case there accidentally happens to be a file with the > name of a target, like clean, in the working directory.
Ah, that seems sensible (although I'd argue that a file called 'clean' in a source tarball is broken). Reading the make info page I find that if you define the targets as .PHONY, then it can optimize a bit, so if your Makefile is large you could get some speed improvement. > > As far as an empty clean target in the Makefile goes, if you're adding > a Makefile to the .diff.gz, and you have the choice to call make clean > or not call it in debian/rules, it just seems like extraneous cruft to > include a makefile with a clean target that does nothing just so you > can run make clean in debian/rules. I was asking about the .PHONY issue. I agree with this point. -- Felipe Sateler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
