config.status nit

[David DeHaven]

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-
>>>