On Sun, Nov 10, 2024 at 08:07:23AM -0700, pe...@easthope.ca wrote: > Jeffrey, thanks for the reply. Decades since I've looked at a makefile. > Understanding is marginal. > > From: Jeffrey Walton <noloa...@gmail.com> > Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2024 22:39:32 -0500 > > My guess is $PROGS is empty. But it is only a guess since the message > > is missing so much information. > > > > Maybe add a $(info $(PROGS)) before the 'all' recipe to see: > > > > $(info PROGS: $(PROGS)) > > all: $(PROGS) > > Inserted line "$(info PROGS: $(PROGS))" ahead of "all: $(PROGS)". That's > what you intended, correct? > > Got this. > # make DEBUG=1 -f ./Makefile > PROGS: utelnetd > make: Nothing to be done for 'all'.
That would mean that some "utelnetd" is there and is as young or younger than its dependencies, so Make concludes that it has nothing to do. Perhaps you need a "make clean" before, to force Make to actually do its thing? Missing that target, you might want to remove utelned, and perhaps utelnetd.o. But perhaps Make is right and utelnetd is built and ready to go? What evidence would you have that it is not so? Cheers -- tomás
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
