You say pattern rules and suffix rules are not portable. Also, the only way to
be portable is to to spell out the rule for each target.
So, can you tell me why autoreconf complains only when I use pattern rules and
not when I use suffix rules?
On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 20:37:04 +0200
Ralf Wildenhues
Hello,
please don't top-post on this mailing list, thak you.
* YuGiOhJCJ Mailing-List wrote on Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 09:43:44AM CEST:
On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 20:37:04 +0200 Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* YuGiOhJCJ Mailing-List wrote on Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 11:14:15AM CEST:
But we can use a old
it in a suffix rule.
How to convert this pattern rule in a suffix rule?
Thank you.
--
YuGiOhJCJ Mailing-List yugiohjcj-mailingl...@laposte.net
Hello,
* YuGiOhJCJ Mailing-List wrote on Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 11:14:15AM CEST:
I know that pattern rules are not portable. When we use one pattern
rule, then we call autoreconf, we can see this warning :
man/Makefile.am:8: `%'-style pattern rules are a GNU make extension
So if we want a
