On Feb 22, 2023, at 22:43, Simon J. Gerraty wrote:
> Mark Millard wrote:
>> It appears that for symbolic links being the target, META_MODE does
>> not respect .MAKE.META.IGNORE_PATHS .
>
> The handling of links is rather complicated ;-)
> Among other things, the src needs to be treated as for a
Mark Millard wrote:
> It appears that for symbolic links being the target, META_MODE does
> not respect .MAKE.META.IGNORE_PATHS .
The handling of links is rather complicated ;-)
Among other things, the src needs to be treated as for a Read and the
target as for Write
Note that .MAKE.META.IGNORE
Mark Millard wrote:
> >
> > Is there anything under ${OBJTOP}/tmp that you don't want to ignore?
>
> More than just _bootstrap_tools_links entries end up in
> ${WORLDTMP}/legacy/bin/ (so in ${WORLDTMP}/legacy/sbin/
> via the symbolic link pointing to ${WORLDTMP}/legacy/bin/ ).
> So: yes.
>
> Al
Simon J. Gerraty wrote:
> > > strings `which bmake` | grep META.IGNORE
> > > .MAKE.META.IGNORE_PATHS
> > > .MAKE.META.IGNORE_PATTERNS
> > > ${.MAKE.META.IGNORE_PATHS:O:u:tA}
> >
> > The -dM output's "is newer than the target" lines
> > show the path from before the above transformation.
> > (The
On Feb 22, 2023, at 19:47, Mark Millard wrote:
> On Feb 22, 2023, at 17:18, Simon J. Gerraty wrote:
>
>> Mark Millard wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for the information.
>>>
strings `which bmake` | grep META.IGNORE
.MAKE.META.IGNORE_PATHS
.MAKE.META.IGNORE_PATTERNS
${.MAKE.META.IGN
On Feb 22, 2023, at 17:18, Simon J. Gerraty wrote:
> Mark Millard wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the information.
>>
>>> strings `which bmake` | grep META.IGNORE
>>> .MAKE.META.IGNORE_PATHS
>>> .MAKE.META.IGNORE_PATTERNS
>>> ${.MAKE.META.IGNORE_PATHS:O:u:tA}
>>
>> The -dM output's "is newer than the
Mark Millard wrote:
> Thanks for the information.
>
> > strings `which bmake` | grep META.IGNORE
> > .MAKE.META.IGNORE_PATHS
> > .MAKE.META.IGNORE_PATTERNS
> > ${.MAKE.META.IGNORE_PATHS:O:u:tA}
>
> The -dM output's "is newer than the target" lines
> show the path from before the above transform
Mark Millard wrote:
> Since some of the paths reported ended up being links
> (symbolic, as I remember), what are the principles for
> which form of paths should be the basis for paths in
> the likes of:
>
> .MAKE.META_IGNORE_PATHS
.MAKE.META.IGNORE_PATHS
> .MAKE.META.IGNORE_PATTERNS
> .MAKE.ME
On Feb 22, 2023, at 15:26, Simon J. Gerraty wrote:
>> The timestamp on . . ./tmp/legacy/usr/sbin/rm is not
>> actually relevant to if libc++.a needs to be rebuilt.
True.
If there is nothing under .../tmp/legacy that should be counted you can
just:
.MAKE.MET
> The timestamp on . . ./tmp/legacy/usr/sbin/rm is not
> actually relevant to if libc++.a needs to be rebuilt.
> >>
> >> True.
> >> If there is nothing under .../tmp/legacy that should be counted you can
> >> just:
> >>
> >> .MAKE.META_IGNORE_PATHS += that path
>
> Was that supposed to b
[Added a question about a possible typo in the old original message.]
On Feb 21, 2023, at 13:31, Mark Millard wrote:
> [This will be a question relative to the old material below.]
>
> On Jan 27, 2021, at 17:33, Simon J. Gerraty wrote:
>
>> Mark Millard via freebsd-current wrote:
> Given
11 matches
Mail list logo
