Talk:Makefile

if [ -f $$file ]; then rm $$file; fi;

what about using rm -f, or $(RM) which is by default defined as rm -f ?

Also, are you very sure you can mark an explanation of your own makefile as a tutorial for makefiles? It seems quite arrogant.

-- Candy

The "mark an explanation of your own makefile as a tutorial for makefiles" does seem a little weird. Maybe you just got that strange naming convention and programmers block I get sometimes. .. maybe all the time. Look I am doing it now. "Makefile: Tips And Tricks". <Have mercy on me..>

-- kmcguire 10:40 AM CST 11 March 2007

Everything is relative, so is arrogance. A practical example may be a good starting point, even if it is your own code. As long as it serves its purpose and people learn from it, why should we care?. You have an alternative? ;) - Combuster 03:05, 12 March 2007 (CDT)

Sorry for taking so long to reply, I'm not a "regular" to the new Wiki (yet?). Candy, you are of course right about the $(RM) implicit variable. The "if"-wrapper is being done to keep the Makefile quiet even if a file from the list does not exist (which is not, in fact, an error, and thus shouldn't bother the user). I know I had problems with "only" rm -f to this end, but would have to do some testing to give an exact explanation. As for the "arrogance" part... you can't write "the" tutorial about makefiles, because make is far too diverse. You can use them to run everything and the kitchen sink. I thought the PDCLib Makefile - being AFAIK correct, non-trivial, and yet not overly long / complex - would be a good example for others to learn a few tricks about Makefiles, especially the dependency handling and non-recursiveness. I shall make the wording a bit more general, and add a note that this is meant as a starting-point, with feedback / requests for extensions being very welcome. Sorry if it sounded too arrogant. Solar 03:02, 28 March 2007 (CDT)