Re: do I really need "make-kpkg clean"?

From: Roel Schroeven (rschroev_nospam_ml_at_fastmail.fm)
Date: 05/05/05

  • Next message: Matthew Schultz: "Man command unresponsive" 
    To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 10:33:16 +0200

    Manoj Srivastava wrote:

    > On Thu, 05 May 2005 00:13:00 +0200, Roel Schroeven
    > <rschroev_nospam_ml@fastmail.fm> said:
    >
    >
    >>Makefiles are meant to deal with changes in the code itself, not
    >>with changes in config options. Make just looks at dependencies and
    >>file dates, not at the contents of those files. When you change a
    >>config option, a define is changed in a file that lots of other
    >>files have a dependency on, so all those files (and files that
    >>depend on it, and so on) are rebuilt.
    >
    >
    >>I think thiss a big drawback of make; one way to minimize the
    >>problem is using ccache.
    >
    >
    > I think this is a drawback in your understanding of
    > make. config files can, and do, just as easily appear in the
    > dependency graph that make considers before taking action. This is
    > not a make capability issue.

    They can appear there, but if a config file is changed, *all* files that
    depend on that file are rebuilt, not only those that are affected by the
    change in the config file. I admit that I don't know exactly how this is
    handled in the kernel, maybe they have found a better way to do it there. 

    -- 
If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood
on the shoulders of giants.  -- Isaac Newton
Roel Schroeven
-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
  • Next message: Matthew Schultz: "Man command unresponsive"

    Relevant Pages