[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: OpenBSD 2.7
From: |
Peter Eisentraut |
Subject: |
Re: OpenBSD 2.7 |
Date: |
Thu, 7 Dec 2000 17:50:04 +0100 (CET) |
Pavel Roskin writes:
> In general, Automake should add a dependency on config.status for every
> file created by it.
(The scripts are not created by config.status, but anyway...)
All these dependencies with config.status, configure, Makefile.in, etc.
are really cute but when you think about it in order for them to be really
useful every target file under makefile control needs to depend on the
makefile used to build it. For example, the rule might have changed, or
the tool to build it is now another. Otherwise, why are you recreating
the makefiles at all?
Of course doing that is not a feasible option, so before long you're going
to have to realize that complete dependencies are not practical. It
sounds very absurd anyway if you make changes in the build system and
expect the very same build system to recover from that.
I.e., you might want to consider removing the explicit rule. How often
does one change the version number?
--
Peter Eisentraut address@hidden http://yi.org/peter-e/
- Re: OpenBSD 2.7, Akim Demaille, 2000/12/06
- Re: OpenBSD 2.7, Pavel Roskin, 2000/12/06
- Re: OpenBSD 2.7, Akim Demaille, 2000/12/07
- Re: OpenBSD 2.7, Jim Meyering, 2000/12/07
- Re: OpenBSD 2.7, Pavel Roskin, 2000/12/07
- Re: OpenBSD 2.7, Lars Hecking, 2000/12/07
- Re: OpenBSD 2.7,
Peter Eisentraut <=
- Re: OpenBSD 2.7, Pavel Roskin, 2000/12/07
- Re: OpenBSD 2.7, Akim Demaille, 2000/12/07