In message: <87tz5jne4p....@snark.cb.piermont.com>
"Perry E. Metzger" <pe...@piermont.com> writes:
:
: David Holland <dholland-sourcechan...@netbsd.org> writes:
: > On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 09:53:13AM -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
: > > > However, I think you should put back the change to main.c that sets
: > > > MAKE_VERSION if passed on the command line; I suspect either pkgsrc
: > > > and/or sjg's portable release probably use it, and probably if we
: > > > aren't going to put a dynamic date into it from the makefile, we
: > > > should put a static date into it.
: > >
: > > Okay, I'll put that part of the change back. It causes no actual harm
: > > to leave it.
: > >
: > > > Maybe what we want to set it to is something like
: > > > [snip]
: > >
: > > That sort of date seems unobjectionable since it reflects the last
: > > change made to the sources rather than the last compile date. However,
: > > I'm not sure why one actively wants it given that you have all the
: > > rcsid's already in the binary. Also, why would one want it more in
: > > "make" than in any other program?
: >
: > Well, remember make is an interpreter; the date goes into the make
: > variable $(MAKE_VERSION) so the information is available to Makefiles.
:
: Yah, but it is largely worthless. Consider that different branches
: have non-linear relationships in dates and features being present.
Consider building NetBSD 0.9 today. As it was, MAKE_VERSION would
seem quite modern, but the make would really be quite old.
Warner
