On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> There are two parts involved here. The removal itself
is one part, the
> dependency on PKGDB another. Before the explicit
dependency forced a
> rebuild of INDEX everytime it was used as dependency
e.g. of the search
> target. Now it only does that when called explicitly
via "make index".
Ah, yes. I forgot what my original gnat was about! Please
attribute
this to holiday over-exuberance.
> > Since this is many, many hours of CPU work, I did
not
> > think that was the intent. But now I do believe
it is the intent
> > of the author. Otherwise, a messy dependency
chain to create PKGDB
> > would be necessary, and make would probably take
longer to check it
> > than to create PKGDB from nothing.
>
> I don't even think we can cleanly express a correct
dependency chain for
> PKGDB without doing something like depending on all
Makefiles +
> buildlink3.mk files. That's why I removed the
dependency of PKGDB.
I concur. I can imagine a horrifying special program to do
this.
I shudder at the thought! Then there is the problem of
updating
a single record of PKGDB, which is also "scary".
The tangible
benefits would be so small as to make the project a case
study in
inappropriate effort.
> The reason why I asked whether the behaviour works as
intented is that
> one additional question is unresolved. When we recreate
PKGDB and build
> the index, should it try to minimise the time it is
non-existing or not?
> I don't think it matters, but you might differ 
Nope, I view building PKGDB as a periodic admin task,
justified only
after say cvs'ing on the latest full quarterly tag.
Thanks for your work on this!
Dave
|