[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: 2.15.15 doesn't build on Mageia

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: 2.15.15 doesn't build on Mageia
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2011 17:08:49 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.90 (gnu/linux)

Julien Rioux <address@hidden> writes:

> On 02/11/2011 4:04 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Julien Rioux<address@hidden>  writes:
>>> On 27/10/2011 7:01 AM, Thomas Spuhler wrote:
>>>> LANG= makeinfo --enable-encoding -I
>>>> /home/spuhler/MageiaSVN/lilypond/BUILD/lilypond-2.15.15/Documentation -I.
>>>> -I./out --no-split --no-headers --output out/contributor.txt
>>>> out/contributor.texi
>>>> out/contributor.texi: No such file or directory
>>>> make[1]: *** [out/contributor.txt] Error 1
>>>> make[1]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
>>> The dependency is correct (it includes $(outdir)/%.texi which
>>> evaluates to out/contributor.texi) so `make' knows that it needs this
>>> file. Also, `make' seems to think that the file exists, but `makeinfo'
>>> reports that it does not.
>> "Waiting for unfinished jobs" is a pointer to multiple jobs.  If there
>> are rules creating or deleting this file or other sideeffects or
>> temporaries without listing them explicitly, make sees no reason not to
>> run the actions of several rules in parallel.
> Sure, he's running parallel make. However there is no word on whether
> the experienced failure depends on running parallel make, or if it
> also happens when running sequential.

When makeinfo is of the opinion it is missing its input file, and make
has a dependency for it, there is no other way to get it confused about
its existence.

>> And it would seem that it ran one rule that removed
>> out/contributor.texi at an unexpected point of time.
> That's just one possibility. There's little point postulating, instead
> the original poster could provide a bit more information.

If you read all of the text I wrote above, you'll not find _any_
postulate.  I am providing information and impressions from my own
experience and knowledge in order to help the original poster have a
better idea how to figure out what is wrong.  I am not stating a
diagnosis, just likely relevant information.

Your stance is that he is not going to figure out anything anyway, and
that he should provide more information to people having more of a clue.
I don't like that approach.  I am not selling my educated guess as
anything other than it is, so I don't see the point in you complaining
about me giving it.

David Kastrup

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]