On Wed, Jan 6, 2021, at 10:56, Greg Reagle wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2021, at 09:57, Sergey Matveev wrote:
> > > clean)
> > > redo-always
> >
> > No need to add redo-always to the targets that only can be "called" by
> > the human/user. User uses "redo" command, that forces specified tar
*** Greg Reagle [2021-01-08 09:55]:
>I am experiencing a problem with phony targets in redo [1]
Well, this is an issue not with the redo itself, but some of its
implementations. My redo implementation (goredo) actually will refuse to
work there too, because it has exactly the same safety check.
P
Thank you for the explanation. To make sure that I understand, please tell me
whether my statements are correct . . .
Redo cannot be told to ignore a target file. If I happen to create a file with
the same name as a phony target (e.g. "install"), then redo will refuse to run
the rule. The on
*** Greg Reagle [2021-01-14 06:39]:
>If I happen to create a file with the same name as a phony target (e.g.
>"install"), then redo will refuse to run the rule.
It depends on how your rule (.do) is written. If it has no dependencies,
no redo-always or anything similar, then it has no obligations
