[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Sat, 04 Nov 2006 14:15:36 +0200
> Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 11:17:05 +0000
> From: Jason Rumney <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden
> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Do you have some sh.exe on your PATH, or did you use CMD? I think my
> > patch would not work with CMD, due to forward slashes in the
> > redirection. I think I'd replace that with some cp command.
> There is no sh.exe in my path, so I think it would have used cmd.exe.
> Perhaps mingw32-make converted the path before passing to cmd.exe?
It turns out that cmd.exe does grok redirection with forward slashes.
But command.com from Windows 9x won't.
> But cp would be safer.
I committed a change to use cp.
> >> But if temacs.exe is not needed to produce the DOC file, why do we
> >> depend on it in the first place?
> > So that, whenever temacs.exe is rebuilt (meaning that some C file has
> > changed), DOC is regenerated by "make install".
> Then wouldn't it be better to build DOC after temacs? Otherwise we lag
> behind by one build, since temacs does not get modified until after the
> DOC file is generated.
I asked why does temacs need to be modified when DOC is changed. Do
you know whether there's any need for that, and why?
Re: Pretest, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2006/11/02
RE: Pretest, Drew Adams, 2006/11/03
RE: Pretest, Nick Roberts, 2006/11/03
Re: Pretest, Richard Stallman, 2006/11/04
Eli Zaretskii <=
Re: Pretest, Bill Wohler, 2006/11/05
Re: Pretest, Nick Roberts, 2006/11/07