Re: Generated changes and patch systems

2008-05-30 Thread Simon McVittie
On Thu, 29 May 2008 at 11:56:37 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Simon McVittie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > However, the "no rule to make tmpl/*.sgml" issue still exists, as a > > relic of the old build process. [...] > Sounds to me like the first thing to try would be to just regenerate all > of t

Re: Generated changes and patch systems

2008-05-30 Thread Neil Williams
On Thu, 2008-05-29 at 11:56 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Simon McVittie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Here's how gtk-doc *used to* work: > > > > * gtk-doc parses source code and writes out skeletal tmpl/*.sgml > > * svn ci -m 'initial version of gtkdoc templates' tmpl > > * upstream doc author

Re: Generated changes and patch systems

2008-05-29 Thread Russ Allbery
Simon McVittie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Here's how gtk-doc *used to* work: > > * gtk-doc parses source code and writes out skeletal tmpl/*.sgml > * svn ci -m 'initial version of gtkdoc templates' tmpl > * upstream doc author inserts content into tmpl/*.sgml > * svn ci -m 'wrote some docs' tmp

Re: Re: Generated changes and patch systems

2008-05-29 Thread Simon McVittie
(Please cc me in any replies, I'm not subscribed.) Neil Williams wrote: > ??? That simply does not work. The problem is that running gtk-doc not > only requires tmpl/*.sgml files to exist but it *then modifies them*! Here's how gtk-doc *used to* work: * gtk-doc parses source code and writes out

Re: Generated changes and patch systems

2008-05-28 Thread Russ Allbery
Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, 2008-05-27 at 18:06 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >> Uh, it's the same problem. Surely the generalization is obvious? > It's not quite the same problem because aclocal.m4 is regenerated in the > clean rule itself because changing it causes ./confi

Re: Generated changes and patch systems

2008-05-28 Thread Neil Williams
On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 11:45 +0100, Neil Williams wrote: Ignore the CC for #482716 - the CC should be for #471263 [patch-systems]: please no patch-system-but-direct-changes-in-diff for generated files -- Neil Williams = http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/

Re: Generated changes and patch systems

2008-05-28 Thread Neil Williams
On Tue, 2008-05-27 at 18:06 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Sun, 2008-05-25 at 08:40 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > >> Lots of other packages do this -- one of mine off the top of my head is > >> xml-security-c. > > > Nope. No mention of aclocal.m4 in

Re: Generated changes and patch systems

2008-05-28 Thread Mark Brown
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 06:06:28PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > With these gtk-doc files, it's not so much that the tmpl/*.sgml files > > are generated but that a tool essential to the build modifies them in a > > way that cannot be patched because the

Re: Generated changes and patch systems

2008-05-27 Thread Russ Allbery
Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sun, 2008-05-25 at 08:40 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >> Lots of other packages do this -- one of mine off the top of my head is >> xml-security-c. > Nope. No mention of aclocal.m4 in debian/rules for that package, > just /usr/share/misc/config.guess a

Re: Generated changes and patch systems

2008-05-27 Thread Neil Williams
On Sun, 2008-05-25 at 08:40 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Sun, 2008-05-25 at 13:19 +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > >> If you run autotools at build time you should also ensure that the > >> changes which autotools makes are reverted in the clean target.