Re: Dependency flaw in cons (and scons) ?

[Johan Holmberg]

On Fri, 22 Feb 2002, Brad Garcia wrote:
>
> > Maybe this is just another argument for "content signatures" !?
>
> Or maybe the target filename should be added as part of the build
> signature?
>
> Brad Garcia
>

This seems like a *very good* way to solve this issue.

It is simple and intuitive, and catches exactly what I was looking
for: that the signature of a derived file should include the "trail"
through the dependency graph, and not just the sum of all things a
derived file depends on (the problem being that several derived
files can depend on exactly the same things).

I can't see any drawbacks.
Can anyone else ?

/Johan Holmberg