[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: make doc

From: Carl Sorensen
Subject: Re: make doc
Date: Sat, 28 May 2011 07:33:12 -0600

On 5/28/11 4:03 AM, "Phil Holmes" <address@hidden> wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Carl Sorensen" <address@hidden>
> To: "Graham Percival" <address@hidden>; "Phil Holmes"
> <address@hidden>
> Cc: <address@hidden>
> Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2011 2:35 AM
> Subject: Re: make doc
> On 5/27/11 11:40 AM, "Graham Percival" <address@hidden> wrote:
>> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 06:25:20PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
>>> Is the aim with make docs to try to make it silent, unless there are
>>> errors, like we have done with make website?
>> I think this is true only if we set a silent flag.  When make errors show
>> up, lots of times I have to look back quite a way to understand the source
>> of the error.  If it were silent, there would certainly be less to look
>> back
>> through, but I think there would also be much less information to help
>> track
>> down the problem.
> The current (new) situation with make website is that it echoes make
> commands if run with a straight make website - it also displays a few
> progress notifications - "Processing web site: [fr]" for example.  If it's
> run silent - "make -s website" it just shows those progress messages and
> currently 4 errors about missing links.  Try it - you might be surprised...
> That's the aim to replicate with docs.  Also to understand and maybe
> streamline it?

Sounds good^H^H^H^H^H great to me!

Understanding, streamlining, and fixing dependencies would be wonderful (not
all of the dependencies are currently in the doc make file properly, so we
sometimes need to touch other files to trigger a rebuild.

Thanks for taking this on!


reply via email to

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