[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Dependency flaw in cons (and scons) ?
From: |
Brad Garcia |
Subject: |
Re: Dependency flaw in cons (and scons) ? |
Date: |
Mon, 25 Feb 2002 10:36:35 -0500 (EST) |
On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, Johan Holmberg wrote:
> You should note that the command lines included in the signature
> calculations are *before* expansion of %< and %>.
...
> Were you aware of that ?
No, I was not! Thanks!
I guess the inputs are included in the signature calculation through other
means, so not expanding %<, %1, %2, etc. is not an issue.
But this makes it even more imperative that the output file name
becomes part of the build signature.
Brad Garcia
- Dependency flaw in cons (and scons) ?, Johan Holmberg, 2002/02/21
- Re: Dependency flaw in cons (and scons) ?, Steven Knight, 2002/02/21
- Re: Dependency flaw in cons (and scons) ?, Johan Holmberg, 2002/02/22
- Re: Dependency flaw in cons (and scons) ?, Brad Garcia, 2002/02/22
- Re: Dependency flaw in cons (and scons) ?, Johan Holmberg, 2002/02/25
- Re: Dependency flaw in cons (and scons) ?, Frank Thomas, 2002/02/25
- Re: Dependency flaw in cons (and scons) ?, Johan Holmberg, 2002/02/25
- Re: Dependency flaw in cons (and scons) ?, Brad Garcia, 2002/02/25
- Re: Dependency flaw in cons (and scons) ?, Johan Holmberg, 2002/02/25
- Re: Dependency flaw in cons (and scons) ?,
Brad Garcia <=