On 10/23/2018 11:48 PM, Nils Gillmann wrote: > Can we solve this commit differently?
Almost certainly yes. > -@include gversion.texi > +@include version.texi > > > My intention here was to drop version.texi (apparently not possible with > autotools then...) > and build the content of it that we really use with the make rules. Sure. But you didn't end up doing that. What you did was break the build (and I needed it to build at the time ;-)). > What is necessary for the build-system to run make all in doc/documentation > which > should build the gversion.texi? Maybe, but I don't understand (as often) what you are trying to do. version.texi is nice as it contains the version numbers generated by configure.ac, which is something we do definitively want. What was gversion.texi supposed to be about? What problem are you trying to solve!? > Do we absolutely require version.texi as part of autotools? > Please look into the commits I made around this, which aren't > good (not at the best of my concentration and health) > but a start. simply removing gversion breaks other parts > of the Makefile now. I don't recall removing gversion, I just changed which one was used. In fact, I couldn't remove gversion.texi as I didn't have it, which was the root of the issue for me.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ GNUnet-developers mailing list GNUnet-developers@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnunet-developers
