Versions: 3.79.1, 3.81.
The definition of (file that is) <(make) Implicit
Rule Search> is ambiguous. does not state, whether this means the
prerequisite in rule in question or in any other rule in makefiles.
This manifests with makefile like this. (I know, libtool does things
like these much
Version: 3.81
Occurs in any `Makefile' obtained from
Makefile.in generated by automake 1.10.1 from Makefile.am.
so reproducing should be easy. `automake' args was:
--gnu
All `Makefile' modification was removing `Makefile' target. The
reason was obvious: otherwise `make' would fail due to `M
Considering what desribed in posted on
Tue, 19 Aug 2008 23:55:34 +0400 to
(<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) to be bug of `make' input, more
precisely, that of automake (generating said input). The issue for
`make' considering thus closed, not a bug, invalid.
My apologies.
Described the automake bug in
po
As for the original (not of make) issue, confirming my [not a bug]
posted on Wed, 20 Aug 2008 22:49:44 +0400
(<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>).
As for attitude expressed in your reply of Wed, 20 Aug 2008 02:57:21
+0400 (MSD)
(<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>), it is
pretty widespread in many free sofware mailing lists, fo
> No one is getting paid,
Unfortunately, the attitude, once established here, nearly inevitably
spreads to other situations, even exactly those of paid "support". It
would be nice to be able to nuke it in all assigned to paid support,
to automatically force everybody manifesting it to go back to
> If you're going to
> insist
Insisting on nothing. Just have no way to do so.
> that people make assumption about your setup because you aren't
> interested in describing it, then expect misleading answers.
Certainly there will always be such a risk. The matter is how much.
Certainly operatin
