Re: forcing a rule

[Boris Kolpackov]

Hi Noel,

> I don't suppose it should break any existing makefiles, either.

I haven't encountered any yet even though I used make with this 
patch to run, let's say, very unusual build systems found (to
name a few) in linux kernel, glibc and ACE/TAO. 

> Can you foresee any situations which will break after installing 
> the patch?

I can't think of any sane example that would break.

> I understand that Paul has put a hold on any new functions since he's 
> trying to get Guile as _the_ scripting language within makefiles so I can 
> understand why lastword, useful as it is, didn't make the cut.

Well, you are lucky that you understand. When I submitted the patch
I wasn't aware of any guile plans and a comment from Paul explaining 
this would have been in order, don't you think?

 
> IME with patches for CVS, this has more of a chance (although certainly no 
> guarantee) of working if there's a discussion about the feature.

Sure I have no problem with that. Let's see how our recent discussion 
about MAKEFLAGS progresses. 


hth,
-boris

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature