Re: make(1) and multiple outputs

On 08/31/18 03:23, Kristaps Dzonsons wrote:
> Short: is there a way to manage multiple outputs from a single command
> with OpenBSD's make(1)?
>
> Longer story. I have a site that generates a few hundred articles using
> sblg(1). Each output article is indexNNN.html, which depends upon every
> input indexNNN.xml. So a change to any indexNNN.xml must result in
> rebuilding all indexNNN.html using a single command.
>
> In GNU make, I can use the pattern substring match to effect this:
>
> all: index001.html index002.html
>
> index001%html index002%html: index001.xml index002.xml
> sblg -L index001.xml index002.xml
>
> But obviously that's GNU-only. It is, as a fallback, possible to have
> sblg(1) create one output per input and play nice with make(1):
>
> index001.html: index001.xml index002.xml
> sblg -C index001.xml index001.xml index002.xml
>
> But with hundreds of articles (each of which depends upon parsing
> hundreds of articles), those are a lot of wasted cycles.
>
> I currently just use the GNU make, but I'd rather use only stock
> components on the server. Any thoughts?
>
Your example and request aren't clear to me.

Do you mean you have index000.xml, index001.xml, ... index999.xml
  and you want index000.html, index001.html, ... index999.html
such that if you touch *any* .xml you want to compile *all* the xml
to produce *all* the html?

You can introduce a set of proxy files to represent the dates
of the xml files.

.suffixes .xml .dummy

.xml.dummy:
        <sblg command> *.xml
        touch $@

Once you have the dummy files to represent individual dates,
you can use various make variables ($<, etc), pattern matching
and substitution functions to produce filenames.

If this isn't what you want I can't understand your question.
The gnu-style makefile doesn't make sense to me and I've used
the % feature in gmake.

If I were doing your project I would work *very* hard
to work around the many-to-many dependency.

Geoff Steckel