Re: Pretest

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 11:17:05 +0000
> From: Jason Rumney <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden
> 
> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Do you have some sh.exe on your PATH, or did you use CMD?  I think my
> > patch would not work with CMD, due to forward slashes in the
> > redirection.  I think I'd replace that with some cp command.
> >   
> There is no sh.exe in my path, so I think it would have used cmd.exe. 
> Perhaps mingw32-make converted the path before passing to cmd.exe?

It turns out that cmd.exe does grok redirection with forward slashes.
But command.com from Windows 9x won't.

> But cp would be safer.

I committed a change to use cp.

> >> But if temacs.exe is not needed to produce the DOC file, why do we
> >> depend on it in the first place?
> >>     
> >
> > So that, whenever temacs.exe is rebuilt (meaning that some C file has
> > changed), DOC is regenerated by "make install".
> >   
> Then wouldn't it be better to build DOC after temacs? Otherwise we lag 
> behind by one build, since temacs does not get modified until after the 
> DOC file is generated.

I asked why does temacs need to be modified when DOC is changed.  Do
you know whether there's any need for that, and why?