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

Re: question regarding dependencies with wmk

On Wed, Jun 24, 1998, James A. Treacy wrote:

> When I initially started using wmk, it seemed to catch dependencies well.
> Starting I don't know when, modifying any file included using #use
> doesn't cause the file containing the #use to be remade.
> Any ideas?

I'm not sure if I understand your question correctly (english is not my native
language). But WMk only looks for direct "outputfile <- inputfile" dependecies
while inputfiles are determined via .wml extension and outputfiles via
corresponding .html extensions (or shebang lines). WMk is not a real
dependency tool like Make, i.e. it doesn't indirect dependecies by checkng
the files referenced via #use or #include statements.

If you really need such things I recommend you to do a different approach:
Write a Perl script which extracts the #use/#include lines from the input
files and calculates depencecies. It then generates Makefiles out of these
depencies and insert "wmk" calls for the targets in these Makefiles.

Or sees anybody an easy way how we can add indirect dependecies to WMk?  IMHO
its not really trivial, i.e. would need more hacking than I've currectly time
for. But when someone contributes a patch I'd be happy to include this
functionality into WMk.

OTOH there are sophisticated built tools out there (Cook, Bras, etc.) which
are better than Make and should be more easily adaptable to a fully
dependency-aware .html <- .wml generation. Has anybody already experiences on
this topic? How do others run WMk or WML?

                                       Ralf S. Engelschall
Website META Language (WML)                www.engelschall.com/sw/wml/
Official Support Mailing List                   sw-wml@engelschall.com
Automated List Manager                       majordomo@engelschall.com