Re: support standalone libltdl [libtool--gary--1.0--patch-23]

[Bob Friesenhahn]

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> I'm not sure libtoolize should be changed.  While Bob and I agreed that
> it was a good idea to have libtoolize update timestamps, this bears a
> problem:
>
> On my machine, several of the above files are installed the same second.
> So, on the client machine where libtoolize is executed, they will have
> the same time.  If libtoolize were to update time stamps, then it would
> need to know the order (and could _not_ infer it from timestamps).  But
> _then_ it would not matter at all which time the installed files had
> anyway.  Not at all.

Timestamp resolution is system/filesystem dependent.  Some filesystems 
(e.g. FAT) only store 1 second resolution.  Others are limited to the 
resolution of the system's hardware clock (e.g. 10ms).  I don't recall 
what the timestamp resolution is for NFS (probably depends on NFS 
version).

While libtool may need to know about ordering if the baseline 
filesystem only supports 1 second, I don't think that libtool is 
required/expected to play tricks in order to try to ensure increasing 
timestamp ordering for installed files.

If the filesystem is insufficient for the speed of the machine, then 
it will not work properly with make.

Bob
======================================
Bob Friesenhahn
address@hidden, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
GraphicsMagick Maintainer,    http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/