Re: do I really need "make-kpkg clean"?

[Roel Schroeven <rschroev_nospam_ml@fastmail.fm>]

Manoj Srivastava wrote:

> On Thu, 05 May 2005 00:13:00 +0200, Roel Schroeven
> <rschroev_nospam_ml@fastmail.fm> said:  
>
>
> > Makefiles are meant to deal with changes in the code itself, not
> > with changes in config options. Make just looks at dependencies and
> > file dates, not at the contents of those files. When you change a
> > config option, a define is changed in a file that lots of other
> > files have a dependency on, so all those files (and files that
> > depend on it, and so on) are rebuilt.
>
>
> > I think thiss a big drawback of make; one way to minimize the
> > problem is using ccache.
>
>
>         I think this is a drawback in your understanding of
>  make. config files can, and do, just as easily appear in the
>  dependency graph that make considers before taking action. This is
>  not a make capability issue.

They can appear there, but if a config file is changed, *all* files that 
depend on that file are rebuilt, not only those that are affected by the 
change in the config file. I admit that I don't know exactly how this is 
handled in the kernel, maybe they have found a better way to do it there.

--
If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood
on the shoulders of giants.  -- Isaac Newton

Roel Schroeven