Raphael Geissert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Having a rule in debian/rules that depends on patch when using the
>> quilt makefile fragment is almost always wrong, since patch is a phony
>> target that will force any rule that depends on it to be rebuilt. This
>> often results in repeated compiles on the buildds, wasting resources.
> Hmmm, I wouldn't be so "dramatic" (not quite the right word, but
> couldn't think about any other, sorry) as it is not always the
> case. Example:
[...]
> So the key point here is: the warning should not be emitted if the phony
> targets do *nothing* but depend on other targets.
I think the only interesting case there would be for an arch: all package
where the *only* build task is to apply a patch. I believe such packages
exist, but I expect they're fairly rare. I don't know if they're still
common enough that it's worth explicitly excluding that case.
There are three cases: The one above, a non-phony target that depends on
patch such as:
build-stamp: patch
# Do stuff....
touch build-stamp
in which case build-stamp is rebuilt each time even if the stamp file
already exists, and a phony target that depends on patch:
build: patch
# Do stuff but never create a file named build....
in which case the dependency doesn't cause any problems that aren't
already there, but that build will be redone on each run of debian/rules.
In the latter case, depending on how debian/rules is structured, it won't
necessarily result in duplicate work for the buildds (I believe it will if
binary depends on build and not otherwise), but I would argue that it's
not best practice for how to write a debian/rules file.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
