%% "Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: mfxjo> I'm sorry of this is an obvious question, but I somehow cannot mfxjo> find a way to nicely express dependency-only-prerequisites.
mfxjo> What is the best praxis for the two scenarios outlined below ? (FYI, I think you mean "practice" here...) mfxjo> # This Makefile contains a typo, and I would like to get mfxjo> # make: *** No rule to make target `tmp/b', needed by `all'. Stop. mfxjo> # mfxjo> # But the order-only-prerequiste below also seems to provide mfxjo> # an (empty) recipe. So the quesion is: how do you best express mfxjo> # a dependency-only-preqrequisite ? Unfortunately, I don't know of any way. Your comments above slightly mischaracterize the situation. It's not quite true that "order-only-prerequisites provide an empty recipe". In a makefile, just defining a target is enough to keep make from complaining about no rule to make a target. The manual says: > If a rule has no prerequisites or commands, and the target of the rule > is a nonexistent file, then `make' imagines this target to have been > updated whenever its rule is run. I guess the result is the same so it's a distinction without a difference. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul D. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Find some GNU make tips at: http://www.gnu.org http://make.paulandlesley.org "Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist _______________________________________________ Help-make mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-make
