https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32254
--- Comment #3 from Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com> --- (In reply to rdiez-2006 from comment #2) > > Since the last-modified timestamp on the .info files matches > > that on the .texi files, the build system thinks that it > > needs to regenerate all of the documentation, > > including the doc/asconfig.texi file. > > Normally, if the timestamps match, GNU make will not rebuild anything. Well it may be something peculiar to documentation files, but my understanding was that for GNU make if file A depends on file B and they both have the same timestamp then the rule to build A will be executed, so that it can be guaranteed that A is newer than B. > If I > 'touch' all *.info files, that would actually trigger regeneration. Or did I > miss something? It is the other way around. The *.info files are built from the *.texi files, so if their modification dates are in the future (with respect to their source .texi file) then that means that they have already been built and so no regeneration is needed. Hence touching the info files after extracting them from the tarball should stop the make system from attempting to regenerate all of the documentation. > Why is the binutils source shipping a pre-built doc/asconfig.texi anyway? > Shouldn't the user always build it from source as par of the compilation? Well it is debatable, but the general principle is that binutils source releases should include all the files needed to build the tools, including auto-generated files. Of course creating the aconfig.texi file is a lot simpler than creating a configure file for example, but the principle still applies. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
