* Paul Eggert wrote on Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 08:32:53AM CEST: > Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Assume the first `make' causes some > > object files to be updated, say, because of a previous `make clean', > > or simply because they were out of date. Those object files will then > > have a timestamp that is newer than the versions of the gnulib files > > that reside in the gnulib directory. So after bootstrap, they may not > > be remade although they should have been. > > Yes, but exactly the same problem exists with symbolic links.
I don't see how. The first `make' already sees the new files from the gnulib tree, through the symlinks. > And there are many similar problems, e.g., if 'bootstrap' modifies > a makefile this means you really have to rebuild everything. Certainly that's not the only problem. The more likely offenders of this (e.g., configmake.h) already depend on the makefile. Cheers, Ralf _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list Bug-coreutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
