Re: For 1.5.10: avoid "touch" for timestap granularity
Derek, David,
* Derek Martin wrote on Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:29:33PM CEST:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 07:59:51PM +0100, Paul Walker wrote:
> > echo -n > stamp-doc-rc
That's not portable at all (i.e., you end up either with an empty file
or a file containing "-n").
> Food for thought:
>
> How long has this code been in mutt's build environment? When has
> anyone ever complained about it being a problem?
Guys. Please read the subject.
> It's probably true that some old BSD systems handle touch poorly, but
> it's almost certainly true that those systems are hopelessly out of
> date, unsupported and unsupportable, and irreparably broken in any
> number of ways...
*snip uninformed reasoning*
Yes. I am _not_ trying to port mutt to those systems.
* David Haguenauer wrote on Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:30:59PM CEST:
> * Oswald Buddenhagen <ossi@xxxxxxx>, 2005-04-05 20:29:26 Tue:
> > On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 01:57:28PM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > > - touch stamp-doc-rc
> > > + echo > stamp-doc-rc
> > >
> > this creates one-byte files. maybe better use ": > stamp-doc-rc".
Why would you mind one-byte files?
> According to "info Autoconf Automatic\ Remaking":
>
> On some old BSD systems, `touch' or any command that results in an
> empty file does not update the timestamps, so use a command like
> `echo' as a workaround.
>
> And I think it was the OP's whole point: we don't want the echo
> command to result in an empty file.
No. I am trying to get people to know problems with relatively _new_
systems, with nanosecond time stamps, and fast enough to build several
things in one second. Systems less than three years old.
Regards, and yes, this is mentioned in the docs as well,
Ralf