Make `root.patched` depend on `overlay/**`?

[wvengen]

Reading the updated documentation (which has greatly improved, in my view), I understand that after updating files in overlay/, one needs to remove a build stamp to rebuild root.patched (here).

Why not letting root.patched depend on on all overlay files? Or does this break a scenario when one is working in root.patched, updating overlay files, and still wanting to build an iso image from the modified root.patched? In that case, feel free to close this issue.

Just a small idea to make developers requiring to know a little less about the build system to work efficiently.

Want to back this issue? Post a bounty on it! We accept bounties via Bountysource.

[lirazsiri]

Thanks for the thumbs up regarding the improved documentation. You
inspired me to take a closer look at that.

Regarding having the build stamp as the target dependency, yes, that's a
bit of a hack. It would be better if make would depend on the overlay
files. That way if any of them change then a new root.patched build is
triggered automatically and you don't have to delete the buildstamp.

The reason it doesn't do that is just that I never got around to
figuring out how to get make to do that.

On 13/08/14 10:53, wvengen wrote:

Reading the updated documentation (which has greatly improved, in my view), I understand that after updating files in overlay/, one needs to remove a build stamp to rebuild root.patched (here).

Why not letting root.patched depend on on all overlay files? Or does this break a scenario when one is working in root.patched, updating overlay files, and still wanting to build an iso image from the modified root.patched? In that case, feel free to close this issue.

Just a small idea to make developers requiring to know a little less about the build system to work efficiently.

---

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#255

[wvengen]

Quick note: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2483182/recursive-wildcards-in-gnu-make
I'll have a closer look later.

[JedMeister]

I'm putting this "on ice"; not that it's a bad idea, but just because I'm cleaning up the tracker (in preparation of v14.1 dev) and it's not a priority ATM...

[wvengen]

👍 thanks for clarifying