When you run make twice, the second time there are still some
compilations performed. In fact, it never pacifies, which is a PITA.
One issue is the following.
In sdf-detgen/src/syn/Makefile.am, we have:
DetBoxedSdf.def: $(BUNDLED_BOXEDSDF)/share/boxedsdf/BoxedSdf2.def
and BoxedSdf2.def is built in boxedsdf/src/syn/Makefile.am (which is
processed earlier, so this is a good point). But the recursive
invocation of all the sub packages implies an installation: that's
what tell Makefile.am:
| $(RECURSIVE_TARGETS):
| @$(mkinstalldirs) $(TMPDIST)
| @set fnord $$MAKEFLAGS; amf=$$2; \
| dot_seen=no; \
| target=`echo $@ | sed s/-recursive//`; \
| list='$(SUBDIRS)'; for subdir in $$list; do \
| echo "Making $$target in $$subdir"; \
| if test "$$subdir" = "."; then \
| dot_seen=yes; \
| local_target="$$target-am"; \
| else \
| local_target="$$target"; \
| fi; \
| (cd $$subdir && \
| $(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) $$local_target) \
| || case "$$amf" in *=*) exit 1;; *k*) fail=yes;; *) exit 1;; esac; \
| inpreinstpkgs=false; \
| for i in $(PREINST_PKGS); do \
| test x"$$i" = x"$$subdir" && inpreinstpkgs=true; \
| done; \
| innopreinst=false; \
| for i in $(NO_PREINST); do \
| test x"$$i" = x"$$target" && innopreinst=true; \
| done; \
| if test $$inpreinstpkgs = true \
| && test $$innopreinst = false; then \
| (cd $$subdir && \
===>>| $(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) DESTDIR=$(TMPDIST) install) \
| || case "$$amf" in *=*) exit 1;; *k*) fail=yes;; *) exit 1;; \
| esac; \
| fi \
| done; \
| if test "$$dot_seen" = "no"; then \
| $(MAKE) $(AM_MAKEFLAGS) "$$target-am" || exit 1; \
| fi; test -z "$$fail"
This piece of code, when going into boxedsdf will install
BoxedSdf2.def again, and then we're good for another set of useless
compilation.
1. Do we really really need to preinstall things like this?
2. If we do, wouldn't it be better to install lazily: only if $cmp
reports the files are different, so as to keep timestamps happy.
This means using another install program...
Spam detection software, running on the system "kualalumpur.lrde.epita.fr", has
identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message
has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label
similar future email. If you have any questions, see
the administrator of that system for details.
Content preview: Goodbye breezy inclinebillboard vexation
angussomewhere hornet dessertarbiter humanoid comptondostoevsky
housebreak guaranteeconvertible snob politicpompous louver
smotherwrapup va satiateroyalty darlene gallhomotopy [...]
Content analysis details: (22.2 points, 5.0 required)
pts rule name description
---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
0.2 INVALID_TZ_GMT Invalid date in header (wrong GMT/UTC timezone)
0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
2.1 BAYES_80 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 80 to 95%
[score: 0.9186]
3.0 HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_08 BODY: HTML: images with 400-800 bytes of words
0.2 MIME_HTML_ONLY BODY: Message only has text/html MIME parts
0.1 HTML_50_60 BODY: Message is 50% to 60% HTML
1.2 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net
[Blocked - see <http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?216.212.95.82>]
3.1 RCVD_IN_XBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus XBL
[216.212.95.82 listed in sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org]
1.0 URIBL_SBL Contains an URL listed in the SBL blocklist
[URIs: strippppnow.com]
1.5 URIBL_WS_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the WS SURBL blocklist
[URIs: strippppnow.com]
3.2 URIBL_OB_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the OB SURBL blocklist
[URIs: strippppnow.com]
4.3 URIBL_SC_SURBL Contains an URL listed in the SC SURBL blocklist
[URIs: strippppnow.com]
0.1 HTML_MIME_NO_HTML_TAG HTML-only message, but there is no HTML tag
2.3 LONGWORDS Long string of long words
The original message was not completely plain text, and may be unsafe to
open with some email clients; in particular, it may contain a virus,
or confirm that your address can receive spam. If you wish to view
it, it may be safer to save it to a file and open it with an editor.
Spam detection software, running on the system "kualalumpur.lrde.epita.fr", has
identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message
has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label
similar future email. If you have any questions, see
the administrator of that system for details.
Content preview: [...]
Content analysis details: (11.9 points, 5.0 required)
pts rule name description
---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
0.0 NO_REAL_NAME From: does not include a real name
0.1 MISSING_HEADERS Missing To: header
1.9 BAYES_99 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 99 to 100%
[score: 0.9981]
0.0 RCVD_IN_SORBS_HTTP RBL: SORBS: sender is open HTTP proxy server
[62.23.232.69 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net]
0.4 RCVD_IN_NJABL_PROXY RBL: NJABL: sender is an open proxy
[62.23.232.69 listed in combined.njabl.org]
3.1 RCVD_IN_XBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus XBL
[62.23.232.69 listed in sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org]
3.8 RCVD_IN_DSBL RBL: Received via a relay in list.dsbl.org
[<http://dsbl.org/listing?62.23.232.69>]
1.2 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net
[Blocked - see <http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?62.23.232.69>]
1.2 MISSING_SUBJECT Missing Subject: header
0.1 MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER Message-Id was added by a relay
