[Top][All Lists]

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


From: Bob Proulx
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2013 15:47:20 -0700
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

Russ Allbery wrote:
> Bob Proulx writes:
> > But another question to ask is if that is the case why not simply touch
> > all of the files to the same time after the patching and before the
> > make?  That also forces everything to appear up to date too and doesn't
> > need AM_MAINTAINER_MODE to be added.
> Sure, that also works.  It just seems kind of silly to have to deceive
> make rather than just removing the make rules that one doesn't want.

hm... well...  It seems no more silly than patching in
AM_MAINTAINER_MODE to deceive the build system not to rebuild things
that have changed too.  Same thing but different.  (shrug) Except I
think putting in a recursive touch in the package build to be the much
simpler alternative.  Simpler is better when the result is the same.

(Although I don't do the recursive touch anywhere myself.  I
automatically update the autotools files in the package to the current
build system's version at build time.  That way support for new
architectures like the latest ARM come along automatically too without
needing to explicitly take action to do it.)

I know that you maintain some very large packages and some of those
undoubtedly have some seriously complex needs.  It is always hard to
talk about things in a general way when there are very specific
exception cases that cause obstructions.  There are always going to be
exceptions needed.  There isn't one size fits everyone.  But sometimes
there is only one size available.  When that one size available
doesn't fit that is bad.  But Stefano is explicitly saying that the
flexibility to do this will remain so we don't need to worry about the
bad case of having only one size that doesn't fit.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]