Subject: Re: make(1) correctness
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Christos Zoulas <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 11/23/1998 01:34:09
In article <365464F2.834CC2DC@bk.bosch.de> Guenther.Grau@bk.bosch.de (Guenther Grau) writes:
>> The command marked "foo wasn't touched" was the subject of some gnashing
>> of teeth and me irritating the author of ispell. He has a rule in the
>> Makefile which doesn't do anything in most cases. Everything depends on
>> its target, and so our make (what make are we using?) appears to say,
>> "I ran the rule, so I will treat the target as modified".
>> Apparently if the file is timestamped with the current second it
>> will be treated as up-to-date, even if this (bogus?) dependency
>> indicates it should be re-made. This can be confusing:
>> Incidentally, what's with BSD and Pmake?
>> I noticed the 4.4BSD manuals have a paper on Pmake,
>> but the manpages seem to be describing something else.
>which version of make are you using? There has been a discussion
>on current-users about the same topic. After this discussion
>Christos Zoulas (Hi Christos, I haven't forgotten, that I want to
>visit you, but right now my jobs leaves no time. I'll contact you
>soon :-) fixed a couple of things in make. Maybe you
>should try with the latest version of make and report again.
Please do visit... While I was trying to fix a problem a few days ago,
I reverted a fix that made the logic execute more stuff than it was supposed
to. I went back and redid part of the `made' logic so things should work
better now. Please get an up-to-date version of make and report to me with
a concrete example if things are still broken for you.