guix-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH 0/4] Build man pages in $(srcdir).


From: Ludovic Courtès
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Build man pages in $(srcdir).
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2016 22:09:05 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux)

Mathieu Lirzin <address@hidden> skribis:

> address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
>> Mathieu Lirzin <address@hidden> skribis:
>>
>>> Anyway, inspired by what is done by Automake for info manuals I have tried 
>>> to
>>> build man pages in $(srcdir), which is fixing the issue too.  The bonus is
>>> that now all the documentation is consistently built in $(srcdir) and that 
>>> we
>>> avoid adding another "case $? ..." trick.
>>
>> This sounds reasonable (in fact I wonder why we were not doing it
>> already given that things are supposed to live in $(srcdir)).
>
> Why were you expecting such thing?

Because as you wrote, it’s how the .info target works, and
understandably so.

>> Did you confirm that ‘make distcheck’ passes after that, and that
>> ‘help2man’ is not invoked when building from a tarball?
>
> I can't confirm for ‘make distcheck’ right now, because of:
>
> substitute: updating list of substitutes from 'http://hydra.gnu.org'...  33.3%
> 4 packages are not substitutable:
>   /gnu/store/5apc4w376ls7fhydg08plc20agry7pn4-emacs-24.5
>   /gnu/store/zfxj52lh6h6q7jmb1w2s34h004zsbaw3-emacs-24.5
>   /gnu/store/10qcwd0gxypm977ksbvhjrpa4m1xk334-emacs-24.5
>   /gnu/store/r8xphs9ka0lwmwhzxv6mfs9j8nm91843-emacs-24.5
>
> Makefile:4913 : la recette pour la cible « assert-binaries-available » a 
> échouée

I’m sure you’ll easily find how to annihilate the
‘assert-binaries-available’.  Find another excuse.  ;-)

> However I have manually checked that with 'make dist' + (regular build or
> VPATH build) 'help2man' is not invoked.

Good.

>> Also, do these changes preserve the benefits of
>> 36629097523b0abd89d1b931293150cb9c1f242d (“build: Generate man pages
>> after compiling Guile objects.”)?
>
> Yes it is.  That would be unacceptable if not.  ;)

Wonderful!

So we’re all set, aren’t we?

Thanks,
Ludo’.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]