Akim> I tend to think it is the same for mans.am.
I think you're right.
Man pages have to be handled specially.
Nobody has ever complained about this not working right either.
Tom
> "Akim" == Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Akim> * texinfos.am: No ?EXEC? hook as currently installing TEXINFOS is
Akim> necessarily in infodir.
Ok.
Akim> -?EXEC??INSTALL-INFO?insexec-data-am: install-info-am
Akim> -?!EXEC??INSTALL-INFO?install-data-am: install-in
> "Akim" == Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> * A user-defined directory is valid for any primary
Akim> My understanding of texinfos.am is that this is not supported
Akim> for _TEXINFOS. Yet? Should it?
True, it isn't. I don't think we need to support it. Nobody has ever
comp
Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > infodir is hardcoded, no means to have others.
> >
> > So at least currently this one does not need the ?EXEC? hook. If
> > there is a bug, it needs much more work.
I tend to think it is the same for mans.am. I don't fix it.
Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
FYI:
> infodir is hardcoded, no means to have others.
>
> So at least currently this one does not need the ?EXEC? hook. If
> there is a bug, it needs much more work.
Index: ChangeLog
from Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* texinfos.am: No ?
Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For a given primary we try to detect which directories are valid.
>
> * A user-defined directory is valid for any primary
My understanding of texinfos.am is that this is not supported for
_TEXINFOS. Yet? Should it?
?EXEC??INSTALL-INFO?install-exec-am:
Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * A user-defined directory is valid for any primary
But obeys the m/exec/ rule. Which means my assumption that
programs.am etc. did not need the ?EXEC? hooks was wrong. OK, thanks!
> * The valid standard directories are chosen on a per-primary basis.
>
On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 04:25:31PM +0100, Akim Demaille wrote:
: My suggestion is therefore that this should become
:
: ?AMDEP?@AMDEP@%FPFX%DEPMODE = @%FPFX%DEPMODE@
How about changing the ?VAR?/?!VAR? syntax to %VAR?%/%!VAR?% at the same
time?
Lars J
Pavel Roskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Nonetheless, given that we can never be sure to what extend the test
> > suite exercise Automake, I would include it anyway: better have
> > automake dying than make. Just imagine
> >
> > ?SOME-CONDITION-RARELY-TRUE? %SOME-PARAM-WE-FORGOT%.
>
> Ok
> Nonetheless, given that we can never be sure to what extend the test
> suite exercise Automake, I would include it anyway: better have
> automake dying than make. Just imagine
>
> ?SOME-CONDITION-RARELY-TRUE? %SOME-PARAM-WE-FORGOT%.
Ok
Regards,
Pavel Roskin
Pavel Roskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I mean, this check is _probably_ not necessary on a user system, since the
> users will use well tested versions of Automake. But I don't have a strong
> opinion. A fast and simple check should not be a big deal.
>
> Developers of Automake, however, sho
Hello, Akim!
> > Maybe it's not necessary to check the output since the user is highly
> > unlikely to use ?FOO? in Makefile.am. I understand it's an internal
> > mechanism for Automake, not exposed to users.
> >
> > However, an optional check would be appropriate. It could be turned on in
> > th
Pavel Roskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello, Akim!
>
> > > ?EXEC?insexec-data-am: install-info-am
> > > ?!EXEC?install-data-am: install-info-am
>
> By the way, it will be nice to have a test that actually fails in absense
> of insexec-data-am or install-data-am.
Err, insexec does not exis
Hello, Akim!
> > ?EXEC?insexec-data-am: install-info-am
> > ?!EXEC?install-data-am: install-info-am
By the way, it will be nice to have a test that actually fails in absense
of insexec-data-am or install-data-am.
> Still, this bug can be easily detected by automake. But @FOO@ bugs
Maybe it's
> "Akim" == akim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Akim> I will look at this tomorrow and fix it. Without looking at the
Akim> code, I think I must have been somewhat too systematic Iin
Akim> inserting ?EXEC?, I don't think info page should depend on exec
Akim> vs. data. Tom? I'm not sure of my
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 04:31:43PM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> Hello, Akim!
>
> The version 1.272 of the top-level Makefile.in that you submitted today to
> the Automake CVS contains the following lines:
>
> ?EXEC?insexec-data-am: install-info-am
> ?!EXEC?install-data-am: install-info-am
>
> I
Hello, Akim!
The version 1.272 of the top-level Makefile.in that you submitted today to
the Automake CVS contains the following lines:
?EXEC?insexec-data-am: install-info-am
?!EXEC?install-data-am: install-info-am
I believe those question marks are supposed to be processed by Automake.
They sho
17 matches
Mail list logo
