MD> "Don't actually run normal recipes; just print them."
Well OK. A hint in the air that something is up the sleeve is better
than nothing.
P.S. here on Debian sid
$ man make|egrep 19\|Manual|tr -s ' '|tac
GNU 22 August 1989 MAKE(1)
Copyright (C) 1992, 1993, 1996, 1999 Free Software Foundation,
make --help in CVS has been updated with the "recipe" clarification but
still says:
-n, --just-print, --dry-run, --recon\n\
Don't actually run any recipe; just print
them.\n"
I agree that make --help is on particularly dubious ground when saying
"any recipe". Sayi
PG> The GNU make manpage starts with this:
PG> WARNING
OK, but not make --help.
Anyway please change things like
-n, --just-print, --dry-run, --recon
Don't actually run any commands; just print them.
To
Don't actually run any commands usually; just print them.
The exact wording I leav
On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 12:15 PM, wrote:
> What really bugs me is we do "man make", and see
>
> -n, --just-print, --dry-run, --recon
>Print the commands that would be executed, but do not execute them.
>
> But that is just plain not always true, and one has to read the fine
> pri
What really bugs me is we do "man make", and see
-n, --just-print, --dry-run, --recon
Print the commands that would be executed, but do not execute them.
But that is just plain not always true, and one has to read the fine
print in other documents to find the whole story.
So t
It's not clear whether you're complaining about rules whose commands are
run even with -n or -t, or whether you're complaining about commands run
by eg $(shell).
Assuming the former, the documentation already explains:
The `-n', `-t', and `-q' options do not affect command lines that begin
with
In the documentation everywhere you mention
-n, --just-print, --dry-run, --recon
Print the commands that would be executed, but do not execute
them.
You should also say:
Well, that is not exactly the truth, in some cases
a even non-malicio
