On Mon, 13 May 2019 00:05:59 +0200
Bruno Haible wrote:
> Howard Chu wrote:
> > >> Example with one rule creating 4 files:
> > >>
> > >> all : copy1
> > >>
> > >> copy1: Makefile
> > >> install -c -m 644 Makefile copy1
> > >> install -c -m 644 Makefile copy2
> > >>
Update of bug #55243 (project make):
Status:None => Duplicate
Open/Closed:Open => Closed
___
Follow-up Comment #1:
Duplicate of bug
Follow-up Comment #2, bug #56025 (project make):
I agree that this is not right. The handling of the prefix character needs a
bit of work.
However, I should say that I intended the prefix character to ONLY be used to
introduce the initial line of a recipe. Maybe that intention needs some
Update of bug #55944 (project make):
Status:None => Wont Fix
Open/Closed:Open => Closed
___
Follow-up Comment #1:
Sorry, but there's no
Follow-up Comment #2, bug #56206 (project make):
Somehow my previous comment was truncated (I do so HATE Savannah markup :( ):
There is another assignment operator for variables, ‘?=’. This is called a
conditional variable
assignment operator, because it only has an effect if the variable is
Update of bug #56206 (project make):
Status:None => Not A Bug
Open/Closed:Open => Closed
___
Follow-up Comment #1:
This behavior is
Howard Chu wrote:
> >> Example with one rule creating 4 files:
> >>
> >> all : copy1
> >>
> >> copy1: Makefile
> >> install -c -m 644 Makefile copy1
> >> install -c -m 644 Makefile copy2
> >> install -c -m 644 Makefile copy3
> >> install -c -m 644 Makefile copy4
>
Bruno Haible wrote:
> Henrik Carlqvist wrote:
>> Example with one rule creating 4 files:
>>
>> all : copy1
>>
>> copy1: Makefile
>> install -c -m 644 Makefile copy1
>> install -c -m 644 Makefile copy2
>> install -c -m 644 Makefile copy3
>> install -c -m 644
Henrik Carlqvist wrote:
> Example with one rule creating 4 files:
>
> all : copy1
>
> copy1: Makefile
> install -c -m 644 Makefile copy1
> install -c -m 644 Makefile copy2
> install -c -m 644 Makefile copy3
> install -c -m 644 Makefile copy4
I think the
On Sun, 12 May 2019 22:23:12 +0200
Bruno Haible wrote:
> Now, when my use-case is:
> - one rule that produces N files (N > 1),
> - I want "make" to execute the rule only once, not N times,
> even with parallel make.
> What is the solution?
I think that the only good solution is to make
Update of bug #8297 (project make):
Status:None => Fixed
Assigned to:None => psmith
Open/Closed:Open => Closed
Fixed Release:
Hi Paul,
> > The real workaround goes like this:
> >
> > ===
> > all : copy1 copy2 copy3 copy4
> >
> > copy1: Makefile
> > install -c -m 644 Makefile copy1
> > install -c -m 644 Makefile copy2
> > install -c -m 644 Makefile
Follow-up Comment #3, bug #42288 (project make):
Limiting jobs based on available memory, like -l but for memory, would be
significantly less complicated than the original request of expressing how
much memory a recipe might consume and having make defer running recipes that
are too large and
On Sun, 2019-05-12 at 18:07 +0200, Bruno Haible wrote:
> This workaround doesn't actually work (in the actual case of GNU gettext):
> it fails the "make distcheck" verification.
>
> The real workaround goes like this:
>
> ===
> all : copy1 copy2
Hi,
I wrote:
> The workaround is to introduce an intermediate target:
>
> ===
> all : copy1 copy2 copy3 copy4
>
> copy1 copy2 copy3 copy4: install-copies
> .PHONY: install-copies
> install-copies: Makefile
> install -c -m 644 Makefile copy1
15 matches
Mail list logo
