From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#9106: 24.0.50; ./configure causes massive recompilation Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 02:38:24 -0400 Message-ID: References: <4E2623CA.8090805@cs.ucla.edu> <4E266E98.4010901@cs.ucla.edu> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1311143971 21779 80.91.229.12 (20 Jul 2011 06:39:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 06:39:31 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 9106@debbugs.gnu.org, bug-gnulib@gnu.org To: eggert@cs.ucla.edu Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jul 20 08:39:25 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QjQRH-0004J2-PY for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 08:39:23 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42677 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QjQRG-0002Rs-WB for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 02:39:23 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:34228) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QjQQy-0002R4-EG for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 02:39:05 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QjQQw-00058c-T1 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 02:39:04 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:52429) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QjQQw-00058P-Fj for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 02:39:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QjQQw-0001XT-2b; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 02:39:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 06:39:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 9106 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 9106-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B9106.13111439145876 (code B ref 9106); Wed, 20 Jul 2011 06:39:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 9106) by debbugs.gnu.org; 20 Jul 2011 06:38:34 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QjQQT-0001Wj-D1 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 02:38:33 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QjQQQ-0001WX-W8 for 9106@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 02:38:31 -0400 Original-Received: from eliz by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QjQQK-0003x0-Db; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 02:38:24 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Eli Zaretskii on Wed, 20 Jul 2011 02:29:38 -0400) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 02:39:02 -0400 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:49464 Archived-At: > Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 02:29:38 -0400 > From: Eli Zaretskii > Cc: 9106@debbugs.gnu.org, bug-gnulib@gnu.org > > > The unnecessary "make" actions would fill up people's screens, > > and would be confusing. > > They fill up my screen already, as things are now. > > > I'm afraid this cure would be worse than the disease. > > I feel there's some kind of misunderstanding here, because with my > proposal, nothing will happen that doesn't already happen. Perhaps > you could show in more detail which Make actions would happen that > doesn't happen now. Perhaps you thought that a mere "make", even without re-running `configure', will trigger these rules. But that is not the case: as long as config.status is not updated, these rules will not be triggered, since unistd.h etc. will always be newer than the corresponding *.in.h templates, due to the fact that move-if-change _will_ overwrite them with newer versions whenever there's a real change in the *.in.h templates. Am I missing something?