Is there a way to tell the main Makefile, "I don't know if the target is out of date or not. Go ask the other Makefile"?
There is no provision specifically for delegating to another makefile, but you can achieve a similar result by ensuring that the recipe for the target in question is always run. There are mechanisms and conventions for that.
The old-school approach is to declare a dependency on a target that does not exist and is never actually built. You may see such a target being named FORCE, though that's only a convention. The name is not directly significant. Example:
some_dir/some_target: FORCE
cd some_dir && make some_target
# Dummy target
FORCE:
As long is there is not, in fact, a file named FORCE in the working directory, the FORCE target will be considered initially out of date, so every target that directly or indirectly depends on it will be built (see also below).
There is, of course, a weakness in that: what if a file named FORCE actually is created? However unlikely that may be, it screws up the whole scheme if it happens. Some make implementations, notably GNU's, have an implementation-specific way to address that. GNU's approach is to recognize a special, built-in target named .PHONY (do not overlook the leading .). All prerequisites of .PHONY are considered out of date on every build, notwithstanding anything on the filesystem. Inasmuch as make implementations that do not recognize that convention are unlikely to be troubled by its use, there is little drawback to putting it in play:
.PHONY: FORCE
You could also skip FORCE and just directly declare some_dir/some_target itself to be phony, as another answer suggests, but there are at least two problems with that:
it's not really phony in the usual sense. You expect that target to be built. Declaring it phony is therefore confusing.
if you happen to try to use that approach with a make that does not recognize .PHONY, then the whole scheme falls apart. If you instead use an intermediate phony target (such as FORCE, above) then your makefile still works even with such makes, except in the unlikely event that a file named the same as the dummy target is created.
But note well that however implemented, any such scheme has a significant drawback: if you force some_dir/some_target be considered out of date on every build, so that the sub-make will be run unconditionally, then every other target that depends directly or indirectly on some_dir/some_target will also be rebuilt every time. On the other hand, if you do not force it to be rebuilt, then it might not be rebuilt when it ought to be, as you already recognize. This is the topic of the well-known paper Recursive Make Considered Harmful. As an alternative, then, you should consider not using recursive make.
