Would you have it complain that commands.mli,v, RCS/commands.mli,v, RCS/commands.mli, s.commands.mli and SCCS/s.commands.mli were missing?
> Not really in this use case. Did you tell make, then, to disable all of its default rules for creating commands.mli or, for that matter, commands.cmo, by checking them out of version control? Can an error message like “The target “commands.cmo” could not be built because the specified dependency “commands.mli” did not exist.” be more appropriate instead of the message “make: Nothing to be done for 'commands.cmo'.”? On Jun 14, 2017, at 23:12, SF Markus Elfring <elfr...@users.sourceforge.net<mailto:elfr...@users.sourceforge.net>> wrote: I have noticed a moment ago that an interface description file was missing somehow for the OCaml source file in this compilation attempt. ... I wonder then that the make tool did not give me a direct clue for a failed software dependency as I am used to in other cases. Would you have it complain that commands.mli,v, RCS/commands.mli,v, RCS/commands.mli, s.commands.mli and SCCS/s.commands.mli were missing? Not really in this use case. The existence of any of those would have let make build commands.mli, hence commands.cmo. This interface description file could also be generated by a command variant of the OCaml compiler. But it seems that it is finally not needed for the build scripts which I am trying to update. Can you come up with a specification for finding which of the possible missing dependencies is the one that you actually care about? Can an error message like “The target “commands.cmo” could not be built because the specified dependency “commands.mli” did not exist.” be more appropriate instead of the message “make: Nothing to be done for 'commands.cmo'.”? Regards, Markus
_______________________________________________ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
