Subject: Re: making 'make replace' safer
To: Peter Schuller <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Greg Troxel <email@example.com>
Date: 07/17/2006 14:01:37
Peter Schuller <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> My point was that if the new rolling upgrade tool is to be capable
> of being smart with regards to avoiding recompilation when there is
> no ABI change, I think there should be an option to override that
> smartness on the theory that sooner or later one will run into a
> compatibility issue anyway.
I agree with this. But it would be 'make replace' that would have the
override, because that's where the bookkeeping is about what's dirty.
Or perhaps two kinds of dirty flags, unsafe_depends and safe_depends,
the latter for when an upgrade happened but the rules say it was ok.
Rough consensus seems positive, so I'll be committing the make replace
Greg Troxel <email@example.com>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (NetBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----