Re: [HACKERS] "make install" now tries to build the documentation

On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 15:17 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > > I'm not exactly sure what the goal is, however. You built the > > documentation at some point. Then it gets updated when necessary. You > > can delete the documentation by running make -C doc maintainer-cle

Re: [HACKERS] "make install" now tries to build the documentation

Peter Eisentraut wrote: > I'm not exactly sure what the goal is, however. You built the > documentation at some point. Then it gets updated when necessary. You > can delete the documentation by running make -C doc maintainer-clean. > Then it's gone forever and never reappears unless you explici

Re: [HACKERS] "make install" now tries to build the documentation

Peter Eisentraut writes: > On tis, 2009-08-18 at 15:13 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Well, having "make install" behave in a history-dependent fashion is just >> as much a hazard for users as it is for developers. > That's kind of a built-in feature of make. Otherwise we could write the > build rule

Re: [HACKERS] "make install" now tries to build the documentation

On tis, 2009-08-18 at 15:13 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut writes: > > On tis, 2009-08-18 at 14:32 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> I'm leaning more towards the "make install-docs" solution after further > >> thought. One thing that's always been a bit bogus about make install > >> is that

Re: [HACKERS] "make install" now tries to build the documentation

Peter Eisentraut writes: > On tis, 2009-08-18 at 14:32 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> I'm leaning more towards the "make install-docs" solution after further >> thought. One thing that's always been a bit bogus about make install >> is that it installs the docs only if they're there. With a separate

Re: [HACKERS] "make install" now tries to build the documentation

On tis, 2009-08-18 at 14:32 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I'm leaning more towards the "make install-docs" solution after further > thought. One thing that's always been a bit bogus about make install > is that it installs the docs only if they're there. With a separate > top-level target, it would be

Re: [HACKERS] "make install" now tries to build the documentation

Peter Eisentraut writes: > On tis, 2009-08-18 at 13:43 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> but now that you mention it, I might have built the docs in that >> tree yesterday, and "make distclean" no longer cleans them out. >> [ checks overnight backups ... ] Yup, that's it: html/ and html-stamp >> were pres

Re: [HACKERS] "make install" now tries to build the documentation

On tis, 2009-08-18 at 10:50 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > On 8/18/09 10:43 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Is it sensible to split out docs installation to a separate target > > "make install-docs"? Or is there some other solution? > > I'd like to have this. There are times I want to *only* build the docs

Re: [HACKERS] "make install" now tries to build the documentation

On tis, 2009-08-18 at 13:43 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut writes: > > On tis, 2009-08-18 at 12:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> It happens for me on my Fedora box, but not on my HPUX box. > > > Assuming no tool bugs, the only way I can see this happening is if you > > already have built

Re: [HACKERS] "make install" now tries to build the documentation

On 8/18/09 10:43 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Is it sensible to split out docs installation to a separate target > "make install-docs"? Or is there some other solution? I'd like to have this. There are times I want to *only* build the docs. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. www.pgexperts.com --

Re: [HACKERS] "make install" now tries to build the documentation

Peter Eisentraut writes: > On tis, 2009-08-18 at 12:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> It happens for me on my Fedora box, but not on my HPUX box. > Assuming no tool bugs, the only way I can see this happening is if you > already have built the documentation. Then, make install might cause it > to be

Re: [HACKERS] "make install" now tries to build the documentation

On tis, 2009-08-18 at 12:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Dunstan writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> Please fix. Maybe installing the docs could be conditional on having > >> done "make distprep", instead? > > > Doesn't seem to be happening for me: > >

Re: [HACKERS] "make install" now tries to build the documentation

Andrew Dunstan writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Please fix. Maybe installing the docs could be conditional on having >> done "make distprep", instead? > Doesn't seem to be happening for me: >

Re: [HACKERS] "make install" now tries to build the documentation

Tom Lane wrote: Sometime since Friday, somebody (probably Peter) "fixed" things so that "make install" at the top level of the tree insists on building the SGML documentation first. I regard this as utterly unacceptable; if I'm just trying to build a new test installation (which I often do mul

Re: [HACKERS] "make install" now tries to build the documentation

Peter Eisentraut writes: > On tis, 2009-08-18 at 11:30 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Sometime since Friday, somebody (probably Peter) "fixed" things so that >> "make install" at the top level of the tree insists on building the SGML >> documentation first. I regard this as utterly unacceptable; if I'

Re: [HACKERS] "make install" now tries to build the documentation

On tis, 2009-08-18 at 11:30 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Sometime since Friday, somebody (probably Peter) "fixed" things so that > "make install" at the top level of the tree insists on building the SGML > documentation first. I regard this as utterly unacceptable; if I'm just > trying to build a new

[HACKERS] "make install" now tries to build the documentation

Sometime since Friday, somebody (probably Peter) "fixed" things so that "make install" at the top level of the tree insists on building the SGML documentation first. I regard this as utterly unacceptable; if I'm just trying to build a new test installation (which I often do multiple times per day)