Paul> Sometimes features are advanced enough that providing a simple example
Well still, a few-liner showing how a: b|c differs from a: b c wouldn't hurt. Paul> under a public license. I meant you guys must be reading an O'Reilly book or hung out in Bell Labs or something. There's no way I could become a make whiz to the depths of order-only-prerequisites with just the docs provided. Wait, I see order-only-prerequisites is of new invention. OK, do provide one tiny example in the docs, as some of our brains are much more example oriented than description oriented. dj> Occasionally, however, you have a situation where you want to impose dj> a specific ordering on the rules to be invoked _without_ forcing the dj> target to be updated if one of those rules is executed. In that case, dj> you want to define "order-only" prerequisites. Without plenty of interspersed examples, that still will take deep concentration to understand, even more if the reader is not a native English speaker. Paul> On the off chance you're actually interested in this feature, these Paul> prerequisites have semantics similar to normal prerequisites: all this Paul> says is that all of the order-only prerequisites must be built before Paul> the target that depends on them. Unlike normal prerequisites, though, Paul> if one of them is updated that does _NOT_ force the target to rebuild. OK, I suppose. But a few baby blocks a: b|c examples added to the docs will drive the point home. _______________________________________________ Bug-make mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
