On Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 11:39:34AM -0500, Bo Peng wrote: > I had so many more rebuild just because of mysterious time stamp > change, so I do not really know if your claim is true. Anyway, I doubt > if make is that good at dependency checking. Quoting from > http://freshmeat.net/articles/view/1702/ > > 1. Make doesn't really support dynamic many-to-one relationships. > It does support many-to-one, but not if the "many" part changes from > one build to the next. For example, Make will not detect if a new > dependency has been added if that dependency is new in the list but > old on disk (older than the target, according to its timestamp). By > the way, make also lacks support for dynamic one-to-many, which makes > it inappropriate for Java builds (with Java, a single file can produce > a variable number of outputs). > 2. Make doesn't really support using automatic dependencies and > updating those automatic dependencies in one run. This forces you to > make multiple Make calls for a complete build. (Did you ever wonder > why the ubiquitous sequence "make depend; make; make install" has > never been folded into just one Make call?)
You believe far too much what's written somewhere on the net without checking it by yourself. Andre'
