Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > ! draft:
> > > ! ifndef DRAFT
> > > ! ifneq ($(MAKECMDGOALS), draft)
>
> How could this condition ever match?
On first call, 'draft' might be set, but in the recursive call, this
code will not be reached because DRAFT iss set.
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > + ifndef DRAFT
> > > + [EMAIL PROTECTED] -s HTML.index.start HTML.index || $(MAKE) $*
> > > + endif
>
> Why are you using $*? This isn't a pattern rule.
>
Sorry, my mistake. Here is an patch to fix that.
--
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECT
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > ? %-A4.tex-ps: %.sgml $(ALLSGML) stylesheet.dsl bookindex.sgml
> > > ? $(JADE.tex.call) -V texdvi-output -V '%paper-type%'=A4 -o $@ $<
> > > + ifndef DRAFT
> > > + [EMAIL PROTECTED] -s HTML.index.start HTML.index || $(MAKE) $*
> > > + endif
>
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > ! draft:
> > ! ifndef DRAFT
> > ! ifneq ($(MAKECMDGOALS), draft)
How could this condition ever match?
> > ! # Call ourselves with the DRAFT value set. This seems to be the only
> > ! # way to set gmake variables in a rule.
> > ! [EMAIL PROTECTED](MAKE) DRAFT="Y" $(MAKEC
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > + ifndef DRAFT
> > + [EMAIL PROTECTED] -s HTML.index.start HTML.index || $(MAKE) $*
> > + endif
Why are you using $*? This isn't a pattern rule.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
---(end of broadcast)--
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > %-A4.tex-ps: %.sgml $(ALLSGML) stylesheet.dsl bookindex.sgml
> > $(JADE.tex.call) -V texdvi-output -V '%paper-type%'=A4 -o $@ $<
> > + ifndef DRAFT
> > + [EMAIL PROTECTED] -s HTML.index.start HTML.index || $(MAKE) $*
> > + endif
What is the point of that?
--
Pete
Patch applied.
---
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > >> The problem is that this requires two runs even to proof the
> > >> documentation,
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> The problem is that this requires two runs even to proof the documentation,
> >> which I think no one wants.
>
> > So what would the API be to signal you want a draft build?
> > gmake DRAFT="Y" html
>
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> The problem is that this requires two runs even to proof the documentation,
>> which I think no one wants.
> So what would the API be to signal you want a draft build?
> gmake DRAFT="Y" html
I'd vote for
gmake d
Am Montag, 8. Januar 2007 05:10 schrieb Bruce Momjian:
> Here is a patch that runs the build twice when HTML.index does not
> exist, and once every time after that. This is not ideal, but it is a
> start.
The problem is that this requires two runs even to proof the documentation,
which I think no
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Perhaps even more to the point, what makes you think that someone
> > will notice the warning? If the docs build is one step in an
> > automated build process, this seems unlikely.
>
> Taking a closer look, it's pretty much guaranteed that no one will
On Sun, 7 Jan 2007, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Perhaps even more to the point, what makes you think that someone
> >> will notice the warning? If the docs build is one step in an
> >> automated build process, this seems unlikely.
>
> >
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Perhaps even more to the point, what makes you think that someone
>> will notice the warning? If the docs build is one step in an
>> automated build process, this seems unlikely.
> Taking a closer look, it's pretty much guaranteed
Tom Lane wrote:
> Perhaps even more to the point, what makes you think that someone
> will notice the warning? If the docs build is one step in an
> automated build process, this seems unlikely.
Taking a closer look, it's pretty much guaranteed that no one will see
them, because the targets they
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
>> I don't know enough about the relevent tool to know if they actually
>> generate a warning about whether they need to be rerun. In any case it
>> seems a much better approach to simply run it again when needed rather
>> th
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
> On Sun, Jan 07, 2007 at 12:42:06AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2007-01-06 at 23:38 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > > Everyone using these tools knows about the two-pass behavior.
> > >
> > > No, n
On Sun, Jan 07, 2007 at 12:42:06AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > On Sat, 2007-01-06 at 23:38 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Everyone using these tools knows about the two-pass behavior.
> >
> > No, not everyone knows. In fact I would argue that most do not know. It
> > isn
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-01-06 at 23:38 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > The attached patch warns users when they create documentation output
> > > that has no index, and suggests re-running 'gmake'.
> >
> > This is just useless noise. If it
On Sat, 2007-01-06 at 23:38 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The attached patch warns users when they create documentation output
> > that has no index, and suggests re-running 'gmake'.
>
> This is just useless noise. If it could tell the difference between a
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > The attached patch warns users when they create documentation output
> > > that has no index, and suggests re-running 'gmake'.
> >
> > This is just useless noise. If it could tell the difference between an
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The attached patch warns users when they create documentation output
> > that has no index, and suggests re-running 'gmake'.
>
> This is just useless noise. If it could tell the difference between an
> up-to-date index and a not-up-t
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The attached patch warns users when they create documentation output
> that has no index, and suggests re-running 'gmake'.
This is just useless noise. If it could tell the difference between an
up-to-date index and a not-up-to-date one, there might be s
22 matches
Mail list logo
