On 23 Sep 2010, at 03:40, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Hello Gary,
Hallo Ralf,
Thanks for the swift reviews again.
> * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 10:29:44PM CEST:
>> On 23 Sep 2010, at 00:35, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>>> * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 07:05:48PM CES
On 23 Sep 2010, at 01:22, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Eric Blake wrote on Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 08:19:28PM CEST:
>> On 09/22/2010 12:13 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Is it acceptable instead to use a nested $(MAKE) invocation prior to
running help2man to ensure the binary is up-to-date?
>>>
>
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 10:36:01PM CEST:
> On 23 Sep 2010, at 01:22, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > * Eric Blake wrote on Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 08:19:28PM CEST:
> >> On 09/22/2010 12:13 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Is it acceptable instead to use a nested $(MAKE) invocation
Hello Gary,
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 10:29:44PM CEST:
> On 23 Sep 2010, at 00:35, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 07:05:48PM CEST:
> >> * Makefile.am (doc/libtool.1, doc/libtoolize.1): Don't rely on
> >> the intermediate files, sinc
On 23 Sep 2010, at 00:35, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Hello Gary,
Hallo Ralf,
> * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 07:05:48PM CEST:
>> The start of my post-release patch queue... okay to push?
>>
>> * Makefile.am (doc/libtool.1, doc/libtoolize.1): Don't rely on
>> the intermediate file
* Eric Blake wrote on Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 08:30:08PM CEST:
> On 09/22/2010 12:22 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >* Eric Blake wrote on Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 08:19:28PM CEST:
> >> $(srcdir)/doc/libtool.1: $(srcdir)/$(auxdir)/ltmain.sh
> >>+ $(MAKE) libtool
> >>$(update_mans) --help-option=--hel
On 09/22/2010 12:22 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Eric Blake wrote on Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 08:19:28PM CEST:
$(srcdir)/doc/libtool.1: $(srcdir)/$(auxdir)/ltmain.sh
+ $(MAKE) libtool
$(update_mans) --help-option=--help-all libtool
When -jN has been passed, the two makes may both t
* Eric Blake wrote on Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 08:19:28PM CEST:
> On 09/22/2010 12:13 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >>Is it acceptable instead to use a nested $(MAKE) invocation prior to
> >>running help2man to ensure the binary is up-to-date?
> >
> >Can you show a patch so I can see what you mean?
>
>
On 09/22/2010 12:13 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Is it acceptable instead to use a nested $(MAKE) invocation prior to
running help2man to ensure the binary is up-to-date?
Can you show a patch so I can see what you mean?
diff --git i/Makefile.am w/Makefile.am
index 6e29a29..f74708c 100644
--- i/
Hi Eric,
* Eric Blake wrote on Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 07:37:58PM CEST:
> On 09/22/2010 11:35 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 07:05:48PM CEST:
> >>* Makefile.am (doc/libtool.1, doc/libtoolize.1): Don't rely on
> >>the intermediate files, since they might
On 09/22/2010 11:35 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Hello Gary,
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 07:05:48PM CEST:
The start of my post-release patch queue... okay to push?
* Makefile.am (doc/libtool.1, doc/libtoolize.1): Don't rely on
the intermediate files, since they might have cha
Hello Gary,
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 07:05:48PM CEST:
> The start of my post-release patch queue... okay to push?
>
> * Makefile.am (doc/libtool.1, doc/libtoolize.1): Don't rely on
> the intermediate files, since they might have changed without
> giving make the opportunity
The start of my post-release patch queue... okay to push?
* Makefile.am (doc/libtool.1, doc/libtoolize.1): Don't rely on
the intermediate files, since they might have changed without
giving make the opportunity to update the actual binaries that
help2man calls in time.
Signed-off-by: Gary V. Vaug
13 matches
Mail list logo
