Hi, as someone who uses order only prerequisites frequently, I would appreciate
at restatement of what the proposed change to behavior is so I can advise
whether I expect my use cases to be affected.
Perhaps in addition to a code patch a proposed documentation patch could help
other lurkers ge
On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 8:12 AM Paul Smith wrote:
> The question we have think carefully about is what sort of backward-
> compatibility issues, if any, we could introduce. Are there situations
> where people are relying on the current behavior?
It is possible that someone relies that running 'm
On Sat, 2025-03-15 at 08:28 -0400, Dmitry Goncharov wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 8:12 AM Paul Smith wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 2025-03-08 at 11:34 -0900, Britton Kerin wrote:
> > > What confuses me is that since the explicitly requested foo
> > > exists and isn't out of date with respect to any n
The patch attached to the savannah issue Dmitry provided below does
include a doc change. I haven't reviewed it yet.
Basically the current behavior is:
To build target A:
- First try to build all prerequisites
- Compare the modification time of all NON-ORDER-ONLY prerequisites
- If any NON-ORDER
Thank you Paul, that helped me, and at first glance see no disruption to my
past applications (which, FWIW, largely consists of the ill-advised but still
useful pattern of auto-creating directories to hold targets).
~ malcolm_c...@stowers.org
From: Paul Smith
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2025 9:23 A
On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 4:12 AM Paul Smith wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2025-03-15 at 08:28 -0400, Dmitry Goncharov wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 8:12 AM Paul Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, 2025-03-08 at 11:34 -0900, Britton Kerin wrote:
> > > > What confuses me is that since the explicitly requeste
