>> It seems then that the original make scripts could treat more >> interface descriptions as optional somehow. > > Without know what your original makefiles said I can't comment on that.
Does such a feedback indicate that would like to look also into the corresponding development repository? Example: https://github.com/coccinelle/coccinelle/blob/07d5a85c2234521238820f7bf3b0ec304839c414/parsing_c/Makefile#L1 >> Would you like to add any more advice to this aspect? > > Only if you have a specific question. I indicated further clarification opportunities already. > I've stated the algorithm make is using; This description is generally fine. > I don't know what else to say. How much can make scripts help to manage (optional) programming interface descriptions? > Certainly the more files you have the more output is generated. I guess that this fact can grow to scalability problem. > So it shouldn't be a problem to search the output for the target that is > not being built correctly then examine the steps make follows to try to > build it. It's the same set of steps whether it's the only target in > the makefile, or one of a thousand targets in the makefile. I imagine that there are related challenges and software development tools to consider for the safer handling of dependency outlines. Regards, Markus _______________________________________________ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make