Jeff Trawick wrote: > Kent Boortz wrote: >> Jeff Trawick <Jeffrey.Trawick at Sun.COM> writes: >> >>> GNU make builds a target when it does not exist or when it is older >>> than a prerequisite. That's different than what you're suggesting -- >>> that make rebuilds the target if it is not newer than the >>> prerequisite. >>> >> >> Hmm, you are so right, and so does most/all other make implementations >> (being a geek I just verified this on Solaris, HP-UX, AIX.....). >> >> Hmm... wonder why I have seen those "sleep" then in other code, >> maybe they like me did not want to spend time finding out what >> is "right" and added them thinking "better safe than sorry" ;) >> >> So as far as I understand, the "sleep" commands can be removed, >> >> kent >> >> >> Running a snippet on a mix of build hosts, they all said "Nothing to >> do for bar" or "bar is up to date" >> >> % do-on-all --cat "cd /tmp; perl -e 'print \"bar: foo\n\techo >> REBUILD\n\" > Makefile'; touch foo bar; make bar" >> > > Thanks for your follow-up, Kent! > > Sunanda, plz update the webrev accordingly and I'll +1. > > Thanks all! > >
I'm facing compilation issues on x86 (sparc works)if we remove the sleep statements and running out on time as well. Aim was to make it to b131.Will it be OK to leave the changes as is for now and file a low priority bug to look at this later. Please let me know what works. > _______________________________________________ > > > webstack-discuss mailing list > webstack-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/webstack-discuss -- Sunanda Menon Database Technology Group BLR03, x87098/91-80-66937098 http://blogs.sun.com/smenon
