>> configure.in has been modified! Please rerun `autogen.sh',
>> then `make all' again.
>
> Done.
Thanks.
Werner
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Le lundi 10 août 2009 à 06:40 +0200, Werner LEMBERG a écrit :
> It would be sufficient for me if `make all' simply aborts with a
> message
>
> configure.in has been modified! Please rerun `autogen.sh',
> then `make all' again.
>
> or something like that.
Done. INSTALL.txt and the Contribut
>> For example, I see that there are no makefile rules which handle
>> changes to configure.in or aclocal.m4...[1]
>
> Should we ever have one?
IMHO yes.
> I'm not sure this is a good idea, because AFAIK make can't rerun
> configure with all the options the user could wish, so configure
> (and
Le dimanche 09 août 2009 à 08:27 +0200, Werner LEMBERG a écrit :
> Is it OK nowadays to say
>
> git pull
> make all
>
> to *really* have a good build?
Not really. There is an issue in the tracker about fonts that are not
rebuilt after changes in the fonts sources and the build tree is not
On Sun, Aug 09, 2009 at 08:27:28AM +0200, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>
> Second, is it now safe to follow with
>
> make doc
>
> to get an up-to-date documentation?
I can't speak to the normal compilation, but "make doc" is
explicitly *NOT* guaranteed without a "make doc-clean" for the
next few wee
Folks,
assume that I've compiled lilypond from scratch, say, two weeks ago,
together with the full documentation. Is it OK nowadays to say
git pull
make all
to *really* have a good build? For example, I see that there are no
makefile rules which handle changes to configure.in or aclocal.
