On 04/04/2012 03:17 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2012, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
Note there's nothing I'm planning to do, nor I should do, in this regard:
the two setups described above are both already supported by the current
automake implementation (but the last one is not
On 04/03/2012 10:39 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
Stefano == Stefano Lattarini stefano.lattar...@gmail.com writes:
Stefano On a second though, by double-checking the existing code, I
Stefano couldn't see how the 'cygnus' option could possibly influence
Stefano the location of the generated info
On 04/04/2012 01:53 AM, Miles Bader wrote:
Pedro Alves pal...@redhat.com writes:
OK, you've all made clear you have your sensible reasons to have the '.info'
...
it available only though the new, undocumented option named (literally)
hack!info-in-builddir. I hope this is acceptable to you.
On Sat, 31 Mar 2012, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
Note there's nothing I'm planning to do, nor I should do, in this regard:
the two setups described above are both already supported by the current
automake implementation (but the last one is not encouraged, even though
it makes perfect sense in
On 04/04/2012 01:53 AM, Miles Bader wrote:
Pedro Alves pal...@redhat.com writes:
OK, you've all made clear you have your sensible reasons to have the '.info'
...
it available only though the new, undocumented option named (literally)
hack!info-in-builddir. I hope this is acceptable to you.
On 04/04/2012 12:53 AM, Miles Bader wrote:
I suspect there are better, cleaner, ways to accomplish the underlying
goal, but I suppose the gcc maintainers don't want to spend the time
fiddling around with their build infrastructure for such a minor
issue...
Why speculate? I haven't seen any
On 04/03/2012 10:39 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
Stefano == Stefano Lattarini stefano.lattar...@gmail.com writes:
Stefano On a second though, by double-checking the existing code, I
Stefano couldn't see how the 'cygnus' option could possibly influence
Stefano the location of the generated info
On 04/03/2012 10:05 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
On 04/03/2012 10:04 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
OK, you've all made clear you have your sensible reasons to have the '.info'
files generated in the builddir in your use cases. Since the actual change
required by automake to allow this is very
On 04/03/2012 10:04 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
OK, you've all made clear you have your sensible reasons to have the '.info'
files generated in the builddir in your use cases. Since the actual change
required by automake to allow this is very small and safe, I'm ready to do
it (see attached
OK, you've all made clear you have your sensible reasons to have the '.info'
files generated in the builddir in your use cases. Since the actual change
required by automake to allow this is very small and safe, I'm ready to do
it (see attached patch, which I will push in a couple of days to
Stefano == Stefano Lattarini stefano.lattar...@gmail.com writes:
Stefano On a second though, by double-checking the existing code, I
Stefano couldn't see how the 'cygnus' option could possibly influence
Stefano the location of the generated info files -- and it turned out
Stefano it didn't!
Stefano Lattarini stefano.lattar...@gmail.com writes:
But since I'm not yet ready to publish this new feature, I intend to make
it available only though the new, undocumented option named (literally)
hack!info-in-builddir. I hope this is acceptable to you.
Sure, works for me.
Thanks.
Ian
On 04/03/2012 09:04 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
OK, you've all made clear you have your sensible reasons to have the '.info'
...
it available only though the new, undocumented option named (literally)
hack!info-in-builddir. I hope this is acceptable to you.
...
*undocumented* option
Pedro Alves pal...@redhat.com writes:
OK, you've all made clear you have your sensible reasons to have the '.info'
...
it available only though the new, undocumented option named (literally)
hack!info-in-builddir. I hope this is acceptable to you.
...
*undocumented* option
OK, you've all made clear you have your sensible reasons to have the '.info'
files generated in the builddir in your use cases. Since the actual change
required by automake to allow this is very small and safe, I'm ready to do
it (see attached patch, which I will push in a couple of days to
On 04/03/2012 10:05 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
On 04/03/2012 10:04 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
OK, you've all made clear you have your sensible reasons to have the '.info'
files generated in the builddir in your use cases. Since the actual change
required by automake to allow this is very
On 04/03/2012 10:04 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
OK, you've all made clear you have your sensible reasons to have the '.info'
files generated in the builddir in your use cases. Since the actual change
required by automake to allow this is very small and safe, I'm ready to do
it (see attached
Stefano == Stefano Lattarini stefano.lattar...@gmail.com writes:
Stefano On a second though, by double-checking the existing code, I
Stefano couldn't see how the 'cygnus' option could possibly influence
Stefano the location of the generated info files -- and it turned out
Stefano it didn't!
Stefano Lattarini stefano.lattar...@gmail.com writes:
But since I'm not yet ready to publish this new feature, I intend to make
it available only though the new, undocumented option named (literally)
hack!info-in-builddir. I hope this is acceptable to you.
Sure, works for me.
Thanks.
Ian
On 04/03/2012 09:04 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
OK, you've all made clear you have your sensible reasons to have the '.info'
...
it available only though the new, undocumented option named (literally)
hack!info-in-builddir. I hope this is acceptable to you.
...
*undocumented* option
Pedro Alves pal...@redhat.com writes:
OK, you've all made clear you have your sensible reasons to have the '.info'
...
it available only though the new, undocumented option named (literally)
hack!info-in-builddir. I hope this is acceptable to you.
...
*undocumented* option
On 04/02/2012 04:25 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
Stefano == Stefano Lattarini stefano.lattar...@gmail.com writes:
Stefano Note there's nothing I'm planning to do, nor I should do, in
Stefano this regard: the two setups described above are both already
Stefano supported by the current automake
On 04/02/2012 05:16 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
Stefano == Stefano Lattarini stefano.lattar...@gmail.com writes:
Stefano True, and that was even stated in the manual; the whole point
Stefano of ditching support for cygnus trees is that by now those two
Stefano big users are basically not making
Stefano == Stefano Lattarini stefano.lattar...@gmail.com writes:
Stefano True, and that was even stated in the manual; the whole point
Stefano of ditching support for cygnus trees is that by now those two
Stefano big users are basically not making any real use of the 'cygnus'
Stefano option
Stefano == Stefano Lattarini stefano.lattar...@gmail.com writes:
Stefano Sorry if I sound dense, but what exactly is the feature you are
Stefano talking about here?
I was under the impression that it would no longer be possible to build
info files in the build tree. But, I see that, according
On 04/02/2012 09:36 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
Stefano == Stefano Lattarini stefano.lattar...@gmail.com writes:
Stefano Sorry if I sound dense, but what exactly is the feature you are
Stefano talking about here?
I was under the impression that it would no longer be possible to build
info files
Hi Stefano,
Stefano Lattarini wrote:
[SNIP]
It should still be possible, with the right hack (which is tested in the
testsuite, and required by other packages anyway). The baseline is: if
you don't want your '.info' files to be distributed, then it should be
easily possible to have them built
Stefano == Stefano Lattarini stefano.lattar...@gmail.com writes:
Stefano It should still be possible, with the right hack (which is
Stefano tested in the testsuite, and required by other packages
Stefano anyway). The baseline is: if you don't want your '.info' files
Stefano to be distributed,
On 04/02/2012 10:19 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
Stefano == Stefano Lattarini stefano.lattar...@gmail.com writes:
Stefano It should still be possible, with the right hack (which is
Stefano tested in the testsuite, and required by other packages
Stefano anyway). The baseline is: if you don't want
Stefano Lattarini stefano.lattar...@gmail.com writes:
Anyway the real use in the src tree is different, IIUC.
Info files are built in the build tree by developers, but put in the
source tree for distribution.
In such a setup, what is the issue with having the '.info' files built
in the
Hi Stefano,
Stefano Lattarini wrote:
On 04/02/2012 10:19 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
Stefano == Stefano Lattarinistefano.lattar...@gmail.com writes:
Stefano It should still be possible, with the right hack (which is
Stefano tested in the testsuite, and required by other packages
Stefano
Hi Ian, Joseph, and sorry for the delay.
On 03/29/2012 01:43 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Stefano Lattarini stefano.lattar...@gmail.com writes:
(I think avoiding info documentation being built in the source directory,
so that builds could use a non-writable source directory, may have been
- Have them distributed (automake's default). This means that
they will be build in the srcdir, not in the builddir: of
course, this only affects the maintainer, since for a user that
builds the package from a tarball those files should *not* be
rebuilt, hence
Hi Alfred.
On 03/31/2012 11:08 AM, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
- Have them distributed (automake's default). This means that
they will be build in the srcdir, not in the builddir: of
course, this only affects the maintainer, since for a user that
builds the package from
On 03/31/2012 01:38 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
On 03/28/2012 02:19 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
Hi Joseph, thanks for the feedback.
On 03/28/2012 01:24 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
Is there better transition documentation somewhere?
Nope, but it would be a good idea to prepare it before
35 matches
Mail list logo
