From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Various Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 22:08:53 +0100 Message-ID: <87d23vsbyy.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87sicx2qqz.fsf@taylan.uni.cx> <87384t2v40.fsf@taylan.uni.cx> <87k2y5t465.fsf@gnu.org> <87lhik27kt.fsf@taylan.uni.cx> <87twx8iz8i.fsf@gnu.org> <878uek22o5.fsf@taylan.uni.cx> <87r3scdjcz.fsf@gnu.org> <87r3sbh3nc.fsf@taylan.uni.cx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36538) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YbF1U-0008DR-ET for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 17:09:05 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YbF1M-0000ny-He for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 17:09:04 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:35217) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YbF1M-0000ns-FE for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 17:08:56 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87r3sbh3nc.fsf@taylan.uni.cx> ("Taylan Ulrich \=\?utf-8\?Q\?\=5C\=22Bay\=C4\=B1rl\=C4\=B1\=2FKammer\=5C\=22\=22's\?\= message of "Thu, 26 Mar 2015 22:04:07 +0100") List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Taylan Ulrich =?utf-8?Q?=22Bay=C4=B1rl=C4=B1?= =?utf-8?Q?=2FKammer=22?= Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org taylanbayirli@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich "Bay=C4=B1rl=C4=B1/Kammer") skribis: > ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: [...] >> This may be because a .ac, .am, or .m4 file is newer than =E2=80=98confi= gure=E2=80=99, >> for instance. Does any of these get patched, which would explain the >> newer mtime? Can it be worked around by changing that file=E2=80=99s mt= ime >> using =E2=80=98set-file-time=E2=80=99 or similar? > > I get the warning even if I just run "./configure && make", outside of > Guix. The reason seems to be config/config.h.in being old; touching it > suppresses the warning, and the build still succeeds. Is it fine this > way? Yes. > + (lambda _ > + (zero? (system* "touch" "config/config.h.in")))) Would this work: (set-file-time "config/config.h.in" (stat "config/config.h")) ? It would be preferable because independent of the system time, but no big deal. OK to push one way or the other. Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99.