Bruno Haible wrote: > Paul, Jim, Eric, others, do you remember other problems of stamp files? > >> The config.h rule (among others) has been using one for years, >> and the last time I've heard complaints or bug reports about it >> has been years also. > > For reference, here's the rules automake generates for config.h: > > config.h: stamp-h1 > @if test ! -f $@; then \ > rm -f stamp-h1; \ > $(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) stamp-h1; \ > else :; fi > > stamp-h1: $(srcdir)/config.h.in $(top_builddir)/config.status > @rm -f stamp-h1 > cd $(top_builddir) && $(SHELL) ./config.status config.h > > $(srcdir)/config.h.in: $(am__configure_deps) > ($(am__cd) $(top_srcdir) && $(AUTOHEADER)) > rm -f stamp-h1 > touch $@ > > distclean-hdr: > -rm -f config.h stamp-h1 > > Is that the kind of rule you would recommend?
Hi Bruno, I know of no problem with that time stamp mechanism. It's been in use (complaint-free) for a very long time.
