On 05/04/13 16:29, Lubos Lunak wrote: > On Thursday 04 of April 2013, Michael Stahl wrote: >> On 04/04/13 20:47, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
>>> This would make library a being rebuild only if one of the 'public', >>> delivered headers of library b changed but not otherwise. And it would >>> make sure, that if both library a and b need to be rebuild, a will always >>> be rebuild after b. >> >> but it has the significant problem that you can remove implementations >> of the public API of library a without noticing it (which you would when >> library b fails to link), thus making incremental builds unsound. > > Significant? That scenario is already broken on its own. If a library > changes > its API, that means its headers need to change as well, thus the dependent > library will eventually need to be relinked. If that's not the case, the > change itself is broken. of course. that's why your build should break if you do that. > Moreover, this scenario is nowadays still somewhat likely, if one rebuild > just a specific module, instead running toplevel make - how many of us do > that after each change? I for sure don't, and won't as long as it takes that > much time it takes. hopefully it should take quite a bit less time with https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/#/c/3272/ and still run all unit tests ;) _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
