On 19.02.2023 15:06, Paul Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 2023-02-07 at 14:51 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> while something has changed from 4.3 to 4.4 in the dealing with
>> intermediate files, the example Makefile below still doesn't work
>> as expected. There are two pairs of *.[ch]
Hello,
while something has changed from 4.3 to 4.4 in the dealing with
intermediate files, the example Makefile below still doesn't work
as expected. There are two pairs of *.[ch] files generated, each by
their respective rule. Each of the *.o files to be compiled from the
*.c ones has a
On 02.07.2020 17:31, Paul Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-07-02 at 17:16 +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> export wom
>>> introduces the variable to the env and set origin to environment.
>>
>> Not according to my observations.
>
> The difference
On 02.07.2020 17:01, Dmitry Goncharov wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 8:49 AM Jan Beulich wrote:
>> is it really intended for "export"
>> without any assignment done at the same time to change the origin of a
>> previously undefined variable from "undefined&q
Hello,
with documentation stating
"As a convenience, you can define a variable and export it at the same
time by doing: ..."
It being merely a convenience, is it really intended for "export"
without any assignment done at the same time to change the origin of a
previously undefined variable
In a makefile like presented in the first response to this issue, it is
claimed that it is appropriate for $? to be empty. However, I would
assume that if $? is empty and if the target exists, then there is no
need to remake the target. Or, to say it the other way around, if an
existing target is
questionable to me whether the same logic as in the include
directive handling can be applied here, since it may be useful to be
able to interact with the conditionals state previously in effect.
Thank you very much,
i.A. Jan Beulich
Software Engineer Senior
Novell Linux Platform Engineering
Novell
