Make folks:
You may want to check out http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=857 and
add comments and/or change GNU make behavior accordingly. There, the
argument is made that HP-UX make behavior is nicer than GNU's current
behavior when two files have identical timestamps: HP-UX considers the
fil
Eric Blake wrote:
You may want to check out http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=857 and
add comments and/or change GNU make behavior accordingly.
Let's leave GNU 'make' alone. Its behavior is better for rules like this:
copy: original
cp -p original copy
I've added a comment to th
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Ray Donnelly wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
>> Make folks:
>> You may want to check out http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=857 and
>> add comments and/or change GNU make behavior accordingly. There, the
>> argument is made that HP
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> Make folks:
> You may want to check out http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=857 and
> add comments and/or change GNU make behavior accordingly. There, the
> argument is made that HP-UX make behavior is nicer than GNU's current
> behavior whe
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014, Eric Blake wrote:
The POSIX recommendation was therefore that GNU should change its
behavior to act like HP-UX, and consider identical timestamps as
out-of-date, because the standard will be fixed to allow HP-UX behavior.
A change like this may result in some builds which
Ray Donnelly wrote:
There was a bug in libfaketime so that the nanosecond field wasn't
cleared
That sounds like it's a different issue. If a program botches the
nanosecond component of timestamps, it shouldn't matter whether 'make'
uses the traditional/GNU or the HP-UX approach; either way,
The obvious compromise would be to change the behavior only in the
presence of the ".POSIX:" special target.
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 9:13 AM, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Eric Blake wrote:
>>
>> You may want to check out http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=857 and
>> add comments and/or change GNU mak
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 8:03 PM, David Boyce wrote:
> The obvious compromise would be to change the behavior only in the
> presence of the ".POSIX:" special target.
Sounds pragmatic; the repeatable builds people would probably like a
solution that doesn't require changing Makefiles though, either
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Ray Donnelly wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 8:03 PM, David Boyce wrote:
>> The obvious compromise would be to change the behavior only in the
>> presence of the ".POSIX:" special target.
>
> Sounds pragmatic; the repeatable builds people would probably like a
>
David Boyce wrote:
The obvious compromise would be to change the behavior only in the
presence of the ".POSIX:" special target.
We should limit ".POSIX" to what POSIX requires. Even if the ruling
stands POSIX won't require the HP-UX behavior, so ".POSIX" should be
independent of this issue.
10 matches
Mail list logo
