[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: maint-guide: rule vs. rules



David Prévot wrote:
> Le 04/05/2011 00:59, Osamu Aoki a écrit :
>> In 4.4.1. Targets of the rules file:
>> 
>> | Every <filename>rules</filename> file, like any other
>> | <filename>Makefile</filename>, consists of several targets and their
>> | rules.  <placeholder type=\"footnote\" id=\"0\"/> A new rule begins with
>> | its target declaration in the first column.  The following lines
>> | beginning with the TAB code (ASCII 9) specify its rules.  [...]
>> 
>> In here, I see you made a change to:
>> 
>> | The following lines beginning with the TAB code (ASCII 9) specify its
>> | rules.

I don't see the change... was their a previous version with "their"?

>> 
>> There are manu rules with different targets ... but I thought this is
>> "its rule" since we are talking about "A new rule".
>> 
>> Am I missing something?
> 
> Since were are referring to “[t]he following lines”, I guessed there
> might be more than one rule for this target. Now that you ask, I must
> admit that one rule can be written in many lines, so now I have a second
> though, hopefully Justin may be able to enlighten us here.

Well, going by the definitions here:
http://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_node/Rule-Introduction.html
a "rule" is the "target" plus "prerequisites" plus a "recipe" which
may consist of multiple commands.  This seems to imply we shouldn't
talk about rules (or even one rule) within the recipe - it should say
something like:

  Every <filename>rules</filename> file, like any other
  <filename>Makefile</filename>, consists of several rules, each of
  which defines a target and how it is carried out.
  <placeholder type=\"footnote\" id=\"0\"/> A new rule begins with
  its target declaration in the first column.  The following lines
  beginning with the TAB code (ASCII 9) specify the recipe for
  carrying out that target.  [...]
-- 
JBR	with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian
	sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package


Reply to: