From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <b5a691e20ea1780e8d2ee07c95961e99@terzarima.net>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] mk question
From: Charles Forsyth <forsyth@terzarima.net>
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 12:23:41 +0100
In-Reply-To: <97cf6a6e603204e68ecb28ccf32cefa3@vitanuova.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: ef4e4010-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

brucee is probably right about the relative merits of the various
approaches for reasonably formulated mkfiles, but in this particular case,

>>if i change the first rule to:
>>	%.b %.m %types.b %types.m: %.typeset mktypeset.dis
>>then i get:
>>	mk: cycle in graph detected at target mktypeset.dis

it seems perfectly reasonable for mk to diagnose this.  it is circular,
since it's declaring that (at least by default) ALL .b in this directory
depend on mktypeset.dis, which as shown includes mketypset.b,
which might cause me, let alone mk, to wonder which is chicken or egg.
if the declarations reflect the dependencies, it should work (subject to bugs).