----- Original Message -----
From: "Francisco Vila" <paconet....@gmail.com>
To: <m...@apollinemike.com>
Cc: "Devel Team" <lilypond-devel@gnu.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 4:18 PM
Subject: Re: make doc and make all
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.
=========================================
Not if you're just editing the CG, for example.
--
Phil Holmes
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
