Subject: Re: "Soft" make dependencies? Was: make build problem - BIND
To: Chris Gilbert <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Simon J. Gerraty <email@example.com>
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
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.