[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: make doc

From: Phil Holmes
Subject: Re: make doc
Date: Sat, 28 May 2011 15:14:29 +0100

----- Original Message ----- From: "Carl Sorensen" <address@hidden>
On 5/28/11 4:03 AM, "Phil Holmes" <address@hidden> wrote:
> > From: "Carl Sorensen" <address@hidden>
> 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!


I've just done "make -d doc &> output.txt" (make with debug, redirect all output). 50 Meg file.

Phil Holmes

reply via email to

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