Hi Karl,
* Karl Berry wrote on Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 07:26:20PM CEST:
> But that text is what's already in the manual!
>
> I don't see it. Maybe I missed it. If so, sorry.
It was in the part your patch quoted. Anyway, doesn't matter of course,
let's just improve it.
> Maybe you can put your suggestions in a proposed patch, so that we
> can avoid misunderstanding?
>
> The first and last hunk are unrelated tiny fixes that I just happened to
> notice going through the source. The rest adds the text about execution
> order.
Thanks. I will apply this to master and branch-1-10, after these two
questions are addressed:
> @@ -9280,23 +9280,28 @@ clean-local:
> -rm -rf testSubDir
> @end example
>
> -Older version of this manual used to show how to use
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] to install a file to some hard-coded
> -location, but you should avoid this. (@pxref{Hard-Coded Install Paths})
> +You may be tempted to use @code{install-data-local} to install a file
> +to some hard-coded location, but you should avoid this.
> +(@pxref{Hard-Coded Install Paths})
Shouldn't the period be moved from after "this" to after the closing
parenthesis?
> +With the @code{-local} targets, there is no particular guarantee of
> +execution order; typically, they are run early, but with parallel
> +make, there is no way to be sure of that.
There isn't even consistency among the various -local targets in their
ordering wrt. other targets. In fact, I wouldn't even know how many of
them are run at what time, so I'm a bit wary of the "typically"
statement.
[...]
> +In contrast, some rules also have a way to run another rule, called a
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; these are always executed after their work is done. The
> +hook is named after the principal target, with @samp{-hook} appended.
> +The targets allowing hooks are @code{install-data},
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], @code{uninstall}, @code{dist}, and
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> +
Cheers, and thanks for the patch!
Ralf
