On Wed, 2021-06-30 at 18:56 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jacob Champion <pchampion@vmware.com> writes:
> > On Wed, 2021-06-30 at 18:29 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Looks like we'd have to make use of a dummy stamp-file, more or less
> > > as attached. Any objections?
> > Spitballing -- if you don't like the stamp file, you could add the
> > check to the end of the $(shlib) rule, surrounded by an ifeq check.
> > Then .DELETE_ON_ERROR should take care of the rest, I think.
>
> Hmm ... I'd been thinking we don't use .DELETE_ON_ERROR, but on
> second look we do, so that could be a plausible approach.
>
> On balance though, the separate rule seems better, because
> .DELETE_ON_ERROR would destroy the evidence about why "nm"
> failed, which could be annoying when investigating problems.
Good point. +1 to the stamp approach, then.
--Jacob