2012/5/3 m...@apollinemike.com <m...@apollinemike.com>: > Hey all, > > I'm for the first time doing semi-complicated doc work w/ the website thing > and discovering a bit about the build system in the process. I learned today > that `make doc' does not automatically `make all' if there are files that > have been touched. Would it be a good idea to roll a make all into make doc? > It'd add no more than 10 seconds onto a doc build if nothing in scm/ ps/ mf/ > lily/ ps/ /ly has changed (perhaps I'm forgetting a few directories) and > would automatically do any necessary compilation if these things have > changed. I can't think of a reason that, when launching make doc, someone > would not want to be working from the current binary. If this seems like a > smart automation, let me know.
I think that dependencies list for building the binary are waaay longer than for make doc. People could want to try building docs alone. That said, it is not usual that make doc succeeds if there are new snippets which usually require the very latest version of the binary to get them compiled. So yes, in practice 'make all' is usually also needed. -- Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain) www.paconet.org , www.csmbadajoz.com _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
