Certainly you could give slightly different messages instead of the
same "I don't know, don't bother me" style message below. Just like we
tell little Johnny "No, but you are getting warmer" instead of just "No".
$ ls
Makefile
$ cat Makefile
%.aa:%.bb
: bla
make u
make: *** No rule to m
I can only assume you're trying to prove a point by making this bug
report virtually unintelligible, with no concrete suggestions for
improvement. Well played. Unfortunately for your point, there's a good
reason for make's behavior.
Pattern rules only match if make can successfully create all th
missing prerequisites useful
when debugging but perhaps it would be so explosively large that it wouldn't be
useful even as an option. I do OK with make -p anyway.
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Dan Jacobson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
On 12/28/06, Martin Dorey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> there are usually many possible pattern rules
> which it MIGHT match, if it could build the
> prerequisites
An example might help persuade - % is often make-able from %.c - so any list of
potentially missing prerequisites would have to
