On czw, 2016-04-14 at 16:19 -0700, Mateusz Matejuk wrote: > but this is preatty weak solution since for more such targets i will > need to copy-paste them with exact names,
But you will have to list the names somewhere anyway... What difference does it make if you say "do.o" instead of "$(ROOT)/<do.o>"? The group can have just one file, and you can expand it in the rule like this: : $(ROOT)/<do.o> |> cp %<do.o> do.d |> $(ROOT)/B/do.d > Is there any viable method to describe dependency on another rule, > target or goal? If you would "invert" your setup it would work without groups. You just need to generate the file do.o in the same directory as the tupfile, and then you can have it as input in another tupfile with full path. Sth like: : $(ROOT)/A/do.o |> ar -rcs %o %f |> libdo.a Another method - if you really want the file do.o to be in B folder - is to generate it with the tupfile in B, not the one in A. Regards, FCh -- -- tup-users mailing list email: [email protected] unsubscribe: [email protected] options: http://groups.google.com/group/tup-users?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "tup-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
