Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!know!samsung!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!hacgate!ashtate!tomr
From: tomr@ashtate (Tom Rombouts)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Anyone know of a "better" 'make' than vanilla System-V's?.
Message-ID: <1340@ashton.UUCP>
Date: 4 Oct 90 17:03:15 GMT
References: <1990Oct3.000440.5275@hades.ausonics.oz.au> <533@6sceng.UUCP>
Reply-To: tomr@ashton.UUCP (Tom Rombouts)
Organization: Ashton-Tate, Torrance, CA
Lines: 17

>In article <1990Oct3.000440.5275@hades.ausonics.oz.au> greyham@hades.ausonics.oz.au (Greyham Stoney) writes:
>
|* Dependancies must be explicitly listed in the Makefile; and they are never
|kept up to date: No ammount of forcing people is going to keep them up
|to date, and it's a pretty pointless exercise anyway. [...]
|Why can't the dependancies be discerned from the source file at
|make time?.

Just for information, Zortech's C++ compiler includes a MAKEDEP
utility that "...will automatically produce dependency lists for
you."  You essentially include a list of source files and then
direct the output to a file "...which can then be used as the basis
for a makefile."  I have not used this, however, but I would also
suspect that similar tools must exist for the *nix world.    


Tom Rombouts  Torrance Techie  tomr@ashtate.A-T.com  V:(213) 538-7108