public inbox for goredo-devel@lists.stargrave.org
Atom feed
From: Sergey Matveev <stargrave@stargrave•org>
To: goredo-devel@lists.cypherpunks.su
Subject: Re: Unexpected behavior in redoing target with missing .redo info
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2025 16:45:03 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <aUFiX4ZFeA248SOZ@stargrave.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aTw25pI09jB1XfDH@stargrave.org>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1188 bytes --]

Greetings!

*** Sergey Matveev [2025-12-12 18:38]:
>I think that "source file" is a file which does not have build
>instructions (corresponding .do file). So we should use the same logic
>of do-files searching for the consistency of the behaviour.

As I mentioned previously, that also means that every file nearby the
default.do will be treated like a non-source one. In theory every
default.XXX.do nearby must be recreated from default.do, in that case.
But I think that this is not convenient for most purposes. XXX.do and
default.YYY.do must be treated like a higher precedence build rules.

In goredo 2.7.0 they behave that way as before -- nothing changed. But
unfortunately they (those .do-s) were always treated like out-of-date
targets. In 2.8.0 I fixed that: if file is not a source file (it has
.do, possibly default.do), but it has .do suffix in filename, then
treat it like a source one.

I am not fully confident about those changes, but seems they break
neither any previous expected behaviour, nor always-OOD some targets
like in 2.7.0.

-- 
Sergey Matveev (http://www.stargrave.org/)
LibrePGP: 12AD 3268 9C66 0D42 6967  FD75 CB82 0563 2107 AD8A

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 265 bytes --]

      reply	other threads:[~2025-12-16 13:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-12-05 18:30 Unexpected behavior in redoing target with missing .redo info Niklas Böhm
2025-12-05 19:26 ` goredo
2025-12-12 15:38 ` Sergey Matveev
2025-12-16 13:45   ` Sergey Matveev [this message]