[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
updating target at the end of recipe, after updating prerequisites, migh
From: |
Mark Galeck (CW) |
Subject: |
updating target at the end of recipe, after updating prerequisites, might not work? |
Date: |
Wed, 5 Oct 2011 15:45:49 -0700 |
Hello,
I am working on Linux RH5, and I have a recipe that updates it's prerequisites,
but at the end (according to one of Paul's "rules") updates the target,
something like this:
target: prerequisites
<touch prerequisites>
<touch target>
To my amazement, the target gets rebuilt over and over, when I try -d, it tells
me the prerequisites are "newer".
When I put "sleep 1" in between the two touch lines - then it works, the target
is newer. !!??
How can this be??? Even if the resolution was low enough that the two files
have the _same_ timestamp, according to the manual, should not update the
target (only update the target if prerequisites "newer"). Certainly there is
no way the prerequisites can be "newer".
Can somebody clue me in?
Thank you,
Mark
- Canned Recipe, MD.Mahbubur Rahman, 2011/10/04
- Re: Canned Recipe, Philip Guenther, 2011/10/04
- updating target at the end of recipe, after updating prerequisites, might not work?,
Mark Galeck (CW) <=
- Re: updating target at the end of recipe, after updating prerequisites, might not work?, David Boyce, 2011/10/05
- RE: updating target at the end of recipe, after updating prerequisites, might not work?, Mark Galeck (CW), 2011/10/05
- RE: updating target at the end of recipe, after updating prerequisites, might not work?, Mark Galeck (CW), 2011/10/07
- Re: updating target at the end of recipe, after updating prerequisites, might not work?, David Boyce, 2011/10/07
- RE: updating target at the end of recipe, after updating prerequisites, might not work?, Paul Smith, 2011/10/07
- is there a simple way to always get a single $ when passed to shell, Mark Galeck (CW), 2011/10/05
- RE: is there a simple way to always get a single $ when passed to shell, Mark Galeck (CW), 2011/10/05