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. Bob
