Hi John, On 2015-05-24, john_perry_usm <john.pe...@usm.edu> wrote: > I once knew that "sage -b" is the proper way to rebuild after a small > change to Sage, but I've been working with other software since then. On > most software, "make" is the ordinary way to go, so it tripped lightly off > my fingers. Thereby I discovered that typing "make" rebuilds an awful lot > of sage, including files otherwise undefiled by my hands (so to speak), and > not dependent on my change. Maybe it rebuilds the whole deal? > > This can be an easy mistake to make, though I reckon I'm the only one dumb > enough to do it twice in five minutes in two separate installations. Does > it seem reasonable to add a prompt at the beginning of the Makefile that > points this out, suggests './sage -b' if they just want to fix some > changes, and asks the user if s/he really wants to rebuild all of Sage?
"make" sometimes involves a lot of compilation if you switch back and forth in git branches that are based on different versions of Sage. But after all, if you work with different Sage versions then rebuilding the spkgs that have changed between versions is the right thing to do. If you just change something in the library, "make" is clever enough to only rebuild what has changed. Nonetheless (at least that's my experience) it can still take a long time till "make" finds out that the docs haven't changed much. Anyway, "make" does *not* want to rebuild all of Sage unless there is a reason. So, I don't see a reason for changing it. NB: Since for me the docs are the most annoying aspect of "make", I usually do "make start". Best regards, Simon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
