NightStrike wrote: > I meant more along the lines of, for instance in the gcc project, > there is 'make all-gcc", "make all-gmp", "make all-mpfr", etc.
Those are all custom local targets. The problem is the same as if I were Bilbo asking, "What do I have in my pocket?" It could be anything and not truly a fair question. > I admit that the idea wasn't well thought out; I just know that > anytime I try using a new project where I need to build specific > parts instead of just "make all install", If you only need to install certain bits then I think the best answer is to make everything but not install everything. If you stop before you install it then you can pick out the parts that you want if you only want certain things. I am a strong advocate of packaging things that are installed on a system. Therefore I usually do the make instal to a DESTDIR location which is not the live system. Then I can poke at things and move things around if needed. For example coreutils installs everything into $(bindir) but the FHS and legacy history put specific commands in /bin and others into /usr/bin. This is done in the packaging script and then when the package is installed everything ends up where it is supposed to be. > I find myself drudging painfully through a bunch of Makefiles to > find what I need. It'd be so much easier to see something like: > > $ make help > The following are valid targets: > all > install > lib64/lib<specific lib>.a > custom-target-that-makes-stuff-just-work As I recall from other postings are you porting software. Sometimes you just have to slog through it. Sometimes upstream authors are willing to help out and make things easier if they are made aware that some of the things they are doing make it hard to port. But porting to a non-free system gets less sympathy. Many of them are seriously broken and it is very frustrating to try to fix them. Bob
