- Original Message -
From:
To: ; ; ;
Cc: ;
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 2:56 PM
Subject: Re: Directs makeinfo and texi2html output to logfiles (issue
5645046)
And one last question:
http://codereview.appspot.com/5645046/diff/1005/stepmake/stepmake/texinfo-rules.make
File
And one last question:
http://codereview.appspot.com/5645046/diff/1005/stepmake/stepmake/texinfo-rules.make
File stepmake/stepmake/texinfo-rules.make (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/5645046/diff/1005/stepmake/stepmake/texinfo-rules.make#newcode37
stepmake/stepmake/texinfo-rules.make:37:
- Original Message -
From: "David Kastrup"
To: "Julien Rioux"
Cc: "Phil Holmes" ; ;
; ;
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 2:31 PM
Subject: Re: Directs makeinfo and texi2html output to logfiles (issue
5645046)
Julien Rioux writes:
I guess I mad
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 3:31 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> Julien Rioux writes:
>
>> I guess I made a typo and it should be
>> eval $1 &> $2 # Redirect both stdout and stderr
>> to log file.
>>
>> but apparently my version of bash understands either &> or >&, and it
>> works pe
Julien Rioux writes:
> I guess I made a typo and it should be
> eval $1 &> $2# Redirect both stdout and stderr
> to log file.
>
> but apparently my version of bash understands either &> or >&, and it
> works perfectly:
Please refrain from entirely unneeded bashisms as the
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Phil Holmes wrote:
> - Original Message - From: "Julien Rioux"
> To: "Phil Holmes"
>
>> Yes, the DEPTH=... confuses bash, so eval is needed. Please try
>> something like the attached though. It removes all the exec stuff and
>> will be much easier to under
"Phil Holmes" writes:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Julien Rioux"
> To: "Phil Holmes"
>> Yes, the DEPTH=... confuses bash, so eval is needed. Please try
>> something like the attached though. It removes all the exec stuff and
>> will be much easier to understand for future contributo
- Original Message -
From: "Julien Rioux"
To: "Phil Holmes"
Yes, the DEPTH=... confuses bash, so eval is needed. Please try
something like the attached though. It removes all the exec stuff and
will be much easier to understand for future contributors. The exec
stuff is needed only for
Julien Rioux writes:
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Graham Percival
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 01:23:06PM -, Phil Holmes wrote:
>>> The reason I was suggesting an early push was that cleaning up make
>>> doc is a cumulative affair, and I find it easier to manage
>>> changes/patch
"Phil Holmes" writes:
> - Original Message -
> From:
> To: ; ;
> Cc: ;
> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 12:56 PM
> Subject: Re: Directs makeinfo and texi2html output to logfiles (issue
> 5645046)
>
>
>> I'm not sure why the ru
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Graham Percival
wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 01:23:06PM -, Phil Holmes wrote:
>> The reason I was suggesting an early push was that cleaning up make
>> doc is a cumulative affair, and I find it easier to manage
>> changes/patches if I don't have multiple dif
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Phil Holmes wrote:
> - Original Message - From:
> To: ; ;
> Cc: ;
> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 12:56 PM
> Subject: Re: Directs makeinfo and texi2html output to logfiles (issue
> 5645046)
>
>
>
>> I'm not sure
On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 01:23:06PM -, Phil Holmes wrote:
> The reason I was suggesting an early push was that cleaning up make
> doc is a cumulative affair, and I find it easier to manage
> changes/patches if I don't have multiple differences from master in
> my build system. I'd like to get o
- Original Message -
From:
To: ; ;
Cc: ;
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 12:44 PM
Subject: Re: Directs makeinfo and texi2html output to logfiles (issue
5645046)
LGTM, but I think it should go through a normal countdown.
The reason I was suggesting an early push was that
- Original Message -
From:
To: ; ;
Cc: ;
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 12:56 PM
Subject: Re: Directs makeinfo and texi2html output to logfiles (issue
5645046)
I'm not sure why the run-and-check.sh script needs to be so complicated.
Nor me. But I did a l
I'm not sure why the run-and-check.sh script needs to be so complicated.
http://codereview.appspot.com/5645046/diff/1005/scripts/build/run-and-check.sh
File scripts/build/run-and-check.sh (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/5645046/diff/1005/scripts/build/run-and-check.sh#newcode3
scripts/bu
LGTM, but I think it should go through a normal countdown.
http://codereview.appspot.com/5645046/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Updates pretty much as suggested. Please review and agree to push.
http://codereview.appspot.com/5645046/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
On 2012/02/07 19:49:46, Graham Percival wrote:
i.e. define
RUN_WITH_LOG = $(top-src-dir)/scripts/build/CheckAndRun.sh
somewhere in a "main" build file (maybe stepmake.make?) and then just
call that
definition everywhere else?
in make/genericgeneric-vars.make, I would think
http://coderevi
Graham basically covered it...
http://codereview.appspot.com/5645046/diff/1/Documentation/GNUmakefile
File Documentation/GNUmakefile (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/5645046/diff/1/Documentation/GNUmakefile#newcode198
Documentation/GNUmakefile:198:
$(top-src-dir)/scripts/build/CheckAndRun
Looks basically good, I just have some trivial quibbles. This should
vastly simplify debugging doc problems, though!
http://codereview.appspot.com/5645046/diff/1/Documentation/GNUmakefile
File Documentation/GNUmakefile (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/5645046/diff/1/Documentation/GNUmake
Reviewers: dak, Graham Percival, Julien Rioux,
Message:
Slightly complicated (for me, anyway) but please review and ask
questions if it's not clear what I'm doing here.
Description:
This uses a shell script that I've written to direct the output from a
command to a logfile, and to issue a line i
22 matches
Mail list logo
