[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [GNUnet-developers] 5b5b317f1e7667371de0695d16eb862997585781

From: Christian Grothoff
Subject: Re: [GNUnet-developers] 5b5b317f1e7667371de0695d16eb862997585781
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 00:50:43 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1

On 10/23/2018 11:48 PM, Nils Gillmann wrote:
> Can we solve this commit differently?

Almost certainly yes.

> address@hidden gversion.texi
> address@hidden version.texi
> My intention here was to drop version.texi (apparently not possible with 
> autotools then...)
> and build the content of it that we really use with the make rules.

Sure. But you didn't end up doing that. What you did was break the build
(and I needed it to build at the time ;-)).

> What is necessary for the build-system to run make all in doc/documentation 
> which
> should build the gversion.texi?

Maybe, but I don't understand (as often) what you are trying to do.
version.texi is nice as it contains the version numbers generated by, which is something we do definitively want. What was
gversion.texi supposed to be about? What problem are you trying to solve!?

> Do we absolutely require version.texi as part of autotools?
> Please look into the commits I made around this, which aren't
> good (not at the best of my concentration and health)
> but a start. simply removing gversion breaks other parts
> of the Makefile now.

I don't recall removing gversion, I just changed which one was used. In
fact, I couldn't remove gversion.texi as I didn't have it, which was the
root of the issue for me.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

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