From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Mar 29 16:24:49 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99C2137B401 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:24:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from obsecurity.dyndns.org (adsl-63-207-60-150.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net [63.207.60.150]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1C2343F75 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:24:48 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from rot13.obsecurity.org (rot13.obsecurity.org [10.0.0.5]) by obsecurity.dyndns.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BACFA66E05; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:24:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by rot13.obsecurity.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9F9771298; Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:24:48 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:24:48 -0800 From: Kris Kennaway To: "M. Warner Losh" Message-ID: <20030330002448.GA32150@rot13.obsecurity.org> References: <20030329.163343.53040416.imp@bsdimp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="4Ckj6UjgE2iN1+kY" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030329.163343.53040416.imp@bsdimp.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: depend + all vs dependall X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 00:24:50 -0000 --4Ckj6UjgE2iN1+kY Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 04:33:43PM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote: > My only concern with the patches is that they might interact badly > with a bug I remember from the FreeBSD 1.1R days, but can't reproduce, > in make. Once upon a time, 'make depend all' was different than 'make > depend && make all' because the .depend files weren't re-read after > the depend phase, but before the all phase, whereas two makes this > would be the case. Since this change combines the two, I'm a little > worried about that. Is that still a bug in FreeBSD's make? It won't > matter for a pure, virgin tree, but might for incremental builds... I'm pretty sure that's still true. Kris --4Ckj6UjgE2iN1+kY Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE+hjlQWry0BWjoQKURAvSyAJ4/h2XKIIvBigu3+3IKhIC/vCm1AACgvdRH 2fHDR+FDgOiO8yJT6UkEAks= =As70 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --4Ckj6UjgE2iN1+kY--