>>> On 10/23/2007 at 6:12 PM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Author: bnicholes >> Date: Tue Oct 23 16:27:15 2007 >> New Revision: 587694 >> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=587694&view=rev >> Log: >> Allow the dependent .hw files in the include/private directory to be > processed as well. > >> @@ -65,6 +65,10 @@ >> @echo Creating $(subst /,\,$@) >> copy $< $(subst /,\,$(APRUTIL))\include\private\$(@F) >> >> +$(APRUTIL)/include/private/%.h: $(subst > /,\,$(APRUTIL))\include\private\%.hw >> + @echo Creating $(subst /,\,$@) >> + copy $< $(subst /,\,$(APRUTIL))\include\private\$(@F) >> + >> $(APRUTIL)/xml/expat/lib/%.h: $(subst /,\,$(APRUTIL))\xml\expat\lib\%.hnw >> @echo Creating $(subst /,\,$@) >> copy $< $(subst /,\,$(APRUTIL))\xml\expat\lib\$(@F) > > Silly question, but if both exist, which rule wins?
In this case they both do. The makefile is just copying code bits into a single ap_config.h. The code bits are surrounded by #ifdef WIN32 or #ifdef NETWARE. So the fact that both ap_config.hw and ap_config.hnw exist and both are copied, the result does the right thing. Brad
