Re: Build dependencies for .texi files (issue 1852). (issue 5169041)

[julien . rioux]

Publish comments.


http://codereview.appspot.com/5169041/diff/1/Documentation/topdocs/AUTHORS.texi
File Documentation/topdocs/AUTHORS.texi (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/5169041/diff/1/Documentation/topdocs/AUTHORS.texi#newcode13
Documentation/topdocs/AUTHORS.texi:13: @include ../macros.itexi
On 2011/09/30 11:41:50, Graham Percival wrote:
> this should be taken care of with the texinfo -I includedir stuff.
Which target
> does it fail with?  I'll fix that .make file.

Without the change, make fails on the second doc build, after the first
one created a AUTHORS.dep file which links to macros.itexi: this file is
not found by make in the current directory, since it is in the parent
directory. I don't know if you can pass something like a -I switch to
make. In any case I think it is better to be explicit about what we are
including here.

http://codereview.appspot.com/5169041/diff/1/stepmake/stepmake/texinfo-rules.make
File stepmake/stepmake/texinfo-rules.make (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/5169041/diff/1/stepmake/stepmake/texinfo-rules.make#newcode28
stepmake/stepmake/texinfo-rules.make:28: sed -ne
"/address@hidden:space:]]/s/@include/.\/$(subst /,\/,$@):/p" $< >> $(subst
.texi,.dep,$@)
On 2011/09/30 12:17:12, Reinhold wrote:
> Shouldn't we do this in a separate rule to create the .dep file?

For .tely files you run lilypond-book to produce the output .texi file
and a .dep file is created as a byproduct. This is the same thing. Is
there a use-case for specific .dep targets?

http://codereview.appspot.com/5169041/diff/1/stepmake/stepmake/texinfo-rules.make#newcode28
stepmake/stepmake/texinfo-rules.make:28: sed -ne
"/address@hidden:space:]]/s/@include/.\/$(subst /,\/,$@):/p" $< >> $(subst
.texi,.dep,$@)
On 2011/09/30 12:17:12, Reinhold wrote:
> This also does not work with nested includes.

If there is a .dep file for the included file, which should be the case
after this patch, then everything is being tracked by make, isn't it?

http://codereview.appspot.com/5169041/