config.status nit

Erik Joelsson erik.joelsson at
Fri Jun 28 10:28:10 UTC 2013

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 

./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.


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-

More information about the build-dev mailing list