3 ms·
> * WARNING: Backward incompatibility! > Previously each target in a explicit grouped target rule was considered individually: if the targets needed by the bui
by nerdponx 4y ago
> * WARNING: Backward incompatibility!
> Previously each target in a explicit grouped target rule was considered individually: if the targets needed by the build were not out of date the recipe was not run even if other targets in the group were out of date. Now if any of the grouped targets are needed by the build, then if any of the grouped targets are out of date the recipe is run and all targets in the group are considered updated.
This is a welcome change! I always thought this was how Make worked anyway, until I tried it and it didn't. Unfortunately none of my coworkers using stock Make on their Macs can benefit, but I can also insist that they install v4.4 since they all have Homebrew already.
> .WAIT
What's a use case for this? Is the idea that you can use it for explicitly sequencing build order of dependencies, without making them actually dependent on each other? Why would you want that?
> let, intcmp
The Turing Tarpit grows... do we have a Scheme interpreter in Make yet?
- david2ndaccount 4y agoYes, actually: https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_node/Guile-Integration.html https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_node/Guile-Int...
- nerdponx 4y agoHah, I meant a Scheme interpreter implemented in a Makefile.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- LukeShu 4y ago> > .WAIT > What's a use case for this? Is the idea that you can use it for explicitly sequencing build order of dependencies, without making them actually dependent on each other? Why would you want that? A use-case that I've wanted this for for a long time is to have build phases. `make install` should build things if necessary; but it'd also be great to have it build everything before it installs anything.
- rurban 4y ago> What's a use case for this? Is the idea that you can use it for explicitly sequencing build order of dependencies, without making them actually dependent on each other? Why would you want that? To introduce concurrency unsafety by deadlocks.
- ufo 4y agoI tried reading that part of the changelog a bunch of times but my brain is having a difficult time parsing it... Could someone please give us an example of what's that problem with the grouped targets?