"Colin Hall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 05:40:15PM +0100, Johannes Rohrer wrote:
* 2012-12-13 15:50 +0100 Phil Holmes:
> "Johannes Rohrer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:3024240.rYn4viUYfR@irrwitzer...
> > 'make doc' generates the texinfo file for the Internals Reference
> > from ly/generate-documentation.ly, which in turn relies on
> > scm/document*.scm and their recursive dependencies to do the actual
> > work. In the process, settings encoded in various other files get
> > documented, e.g. from ly/engraver-init.ly and scm/define-*.scm.
> >
> > Changes to such files do not necessitate, nor trigger, recompiling
> > the LilyPond binary; yet that is the only dependency marked:
> >
> > --- Documentation/GNUmakefile, lines 287-288 ---
> > $(outdir)/internals.texi: $(LILYPOND_BINARY)
> > cd $(outdir) && $(buildscript-dir)/run-and-check
> > "$(LILYPOND_BINARY) --verbose
> > $(top-src-dir)/ly/generate-documentation"
> > "generate-documentation.log"
> > ---
>
> In this situation, I believe we expect developers to run
>
> make
> make doc
>
> rather than have make doc remake the binaries.
But that does not work?
Say, I change scm/translation.scm, one of the files responsible for IR
generation, and nothing else.
The LilyPond binary does not depend on scheme files, so 'make'
(correctly) does NOT recreate it.
Hence, without the added dependencies, neither does 'make doc' recreate
internals.texi.
Just to let the bug squad know, Johannes Rohrer created his own tracker
for this.
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3020
Cheers,
Colin.
Strictly, I think git-cl did, as part of the patch review process.
--
Phil Holmes
Bug Squad
_______________________________________________
bug-lilypond mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
