On Monday 30 August 2004 03:27 pm, Tom Alsberg wrote: > On Sun, Aug 15, 2004 at 09:53:30AM -0700, Brooks Davis wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 14, 2004 at 10:03:37AM +0200, Geert Hendrickx wrote: > > > Does adding "NOCLEAN=true" to /etc/make.conf have the same effect? > > Just my two cents: > > Yes, but it's likely to attract flames because NOCLEAN does fail. If > > you forget it's in your make.conf there's a good chance you could report > > a bug that isn't a bug a waste a bunch of developer time. > > In that case, there is a bug though - namely, a bug in the Makefile. > Although this has happened to me in the past, it shouldn't happen in > normal circumstances. The idea of Makefiles, when writing them > correctly, is that only what's affected by a change -- but everything > affected by it -- will be rebuilt in case of a change. > > So there's no good reason for a make to fail unless something very odd > happened (with the timestamps, etc.) or something like this happens, > it means some dependency is missing, or some script external to the > Makefile did something wrong.
That may be true for simple projects but this isn't a simple project. For example, when gcc was recently upgraded it changed the ABI for C++. Imagine if one had mismatched .o files for libstdc++ if some of the source files didn't change. That kind of dependency (on a compiler ABI) is not easily expressed in Makefilesm, and certainly not cleanly. -- John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
