> Hello, > > Thanks for the replies, however I think that after reading them you folk > have not actually understood what I wrote.
Hi, Christopher. Apologies, I had nothing to offer at the time, but I thought your description clear enough. > > There is something wrong with their code for building the documentation. > > I have now come across three packages with exactly the same error with > brasero being the third. It shouldn't be that way, of course, but, well, everybody tries to push stuff "out the door". Makefiles are entrusted to autoconfigure. As long as the main configuration options seem to work, it's ASSUMED to be good. It's just the way things are. > >From what I can tell, at the make install stage, it does not seem to be > picking up on the fact that documentation has been disabled. It appears > to be hard coded. It should be reported upstream. It's really their responsibility to get the Makefile generated correctly. Hacking the Makefile you got, or the config.in, is probably not worth the effort. Just remove it after. > There also appears to be something really messed up with the threading of > this reply. One of the replies comes through as a scrubbed attachment and > has totally messed the threading up. I've noticed that happens when someone sends an HTML encoded post. Some email clients never have heard of "text" it seems. "What? Who doesn't want my cutely formatted HTML?" -- Paul Rogers [email protected] Rogers' Second Law: "Everything you do communicates." (I do not personally endorse any additions after this line. TANSTAAFL :-) -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
