Ah, that makes sense. It's been years since I touched autoconf in any significant way, it doesn't seem to be any less confusing these days ;)
-DrD- > Now I've read some more documentation. My answer would be no. It seems to me > that --recheck only updates the file config.status and doesn't actually > update the generated configuration (spec files in our case). From what I > understand you would need to do this to get a full reconfiguration: > > ./config.status --recheck && ./config.status > > The first updates config.status itself, the second runs it to update the > configuration (spec) files. > > Unfortunately, config.status isn't playing well with our wrapper for > configure and our requirement to use bash instead of sh. Perhaps something > can be done about this. > > /Erik > > On 2013-06-28 12:12, Erik Joelsson wrote: >> I'm not familiar with that feature of autoconf. The check in make puts a >> dependency between spec.gmk and all the files in common/autoconf. If >> spec.gmk isn't touched, make won't budge. Running config.status isn't >> working on my machine though, so I will need to investigate this a bit more >> and see if we can get it working. >> >> /Erik >> >> On 2013-06-27 20:23, David DeHaven wrote: >>> Am I wrong in thinking that running "build/<target>/config.status >>> --recheck" should alleviate the "you need to re-run configure" condition >>> that happens when you pull in new sources? I think it needs to touch some >>> config files if they are unchanged or whatever test is blocking the build >>> needs to consider that it may have been re-run and nothing changed. >>> >>> -DrD- >>>
