This is the mail archive of the binutils@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the binutils project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: re-re-re-re-configuring

From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
To: Nathanael Nerode <neroden at twcny dot rr dot com>
Cc: DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>, binutils at sources dot redhat dot com,gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com, gcc-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 22:24:04 -0500
Subject: Re: re-re-re-re-configuring
References: <20021206102555.GA15028@redhat.com> <200212061850.gB6Io3m26371@greed.delorie.com> <3DF3C9D7.90204@twcny.rr.com>

On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 05:38:15PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> And the reason I didn't do this was due to a different bug.
> If libiberty is changed, then since
> configure-bfd: configure-libiberty
> configure-bfd: bfd/Makefile
> 
> bfd/Makefile won't be regenerated.
> 
> The correct solution is to change it to
> bfd/Makefile: libiberty/Makefile
> 
> which I will work up a simple patch for if nobody beats me to it.
> 
> (I'll replace all maybe-configure-X: configure-X dependencies with
> maybe-configure-X: X/Makefile dependencies.)

So, um, silly question.  Why does changing libiberty require that
bfd/Makefile be regenerated?

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer

Follow-Ups:
- Re: re-re-re-re-configuring
  - From: DJ Delorie

References:
- re-re-re-re-configuring
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: re-re-re-re-configuring
  - From: DJ Delorie
- Re: re-re-re-re-configuring
  - From: Nathanael Nerode

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]