Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 13:15:09 +0100 From: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> To: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: make versus _MANPAGE Message-ID: <4024D6CD.5060706@fillmore-labs.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.58.0402071239250.13746@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at> References: <Pine.BSF.4.58.0402052304380.74479@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at> <4022D750.1040803@fillmore-labs.com> <Pine.BSF.4.58.0402071239250.13746@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > On Fri, 6 Feb 2004, Oliver Eikemeier wrote: > >>>I am currently fighting a very nasty problem where a construct involving >>>.for in a Makefile works as expected, depending on whether I use it before >>>.include <bsd.port.post.mk> or after. >> >>[...] >>.for evaluates its arguments immediately, not delayed. _MANPAGES is >>defined in bsd.port.pre.mk, so it is only defined *afterwards*. Works >>as advertised. > > Thanks for the explanation! > > So this _never_ could have worked, and we were just lucky in that none > of our users noticed/reported the problem before? Where do you use it? I *strongly* suggest that you look for an alternative, this scheme may break if bsd.port.mk is reorganized. > (Where could I have found the semantics of .for documented? The make > man page was not very helpful.) http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/make2/ file:///usr/share/doc/psd/12.make/paper.ascii.gz IEEE Std 1003.2-1992 (POSIX.2 Shell & Tools) Sorry, make is not well documented in the base system. -Oliver
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4024D6CD.5060706>