Subject: Re: "Soft" make dependencies? Was: make build problem - BIND
To: Chris Gilbert <>
From: Simon J. Gerraty <>
List: current-users
Date: 05/30/2001 12:06:05
>> >I presume you gather the .d files so that there's only one file for make
>> >to open (esp. in the case where not all source files are re-compiled).
>> Yep.  Its a pitty that we can't do .include "*.d" like gmake :-)

>Surely it'd be better to keep them seperate (yes there's a bit more over 
>head, but nothing compared with the delights of forking a new process for 

We might be saying the same things.... yes I keep them separate for all the
reasons you mentioned.  And if I could .inlcude "*.d" I would, but right 
now I can't so I munge them into a .depend as well.

>If we've got missing functionality like the above, perhaps we should look at 
>implmenting it.

I did briefly...

>can't the .ly thing be done implicitly, IE we have a rule that generates a .c 
>and .h with the same name?

I think that's what I said.

>Note I have used the auto dependancy stuff on a real project, and it made 
>life so much easier.

Me too, and yes its a big win.