Re: Issue 1852 in lilypond: manuals needs more explicit dependencies
Comment #50 on issue 1852 by philehol...@gmail.com: manuals needs more explicit dependencies http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1852 Issue 2028 raised. ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Issue 1852 in lilypond: manuals needs more explicit dependencies
Updates: Status: Verified Comment #49 on issue 1852 by philehol...@gmail.com: manuals needs more explicit dependencies http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1852 I bought a machine to make it possible to make doc quicker - it can build docs from scratch in about 12 minutes. I'll verify this one and raise a new issue. ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Issue 1852 in lilypond: manuals needs more explicit dependencies
Comment #48 on issue 1852 by julien.r...@gmail.com: manuals needs more explicit dependencies http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1852 The output would be interesting to be sure, and I think it should get a separate issue number. And thanks again, a make doc on your machine seems to happen about six times faster than on mine, but it's still always a real drag to test these patches to the doc build. ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Issue 1852 in lilypond: manuals needs more explicit dependencies
Comment #47 on issue 1852 by philehol...@gmail.com: manuals needs more explicit dependencies http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1852 If you want the output of what I now call the null make doc, please let me know. ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Issue 1852 in lilypond: manuals needs more explicit dependencies
Comment #46 on issue 1852 by philehol...@gmail.com: manuals needs more explicit dependencies http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1852 Just done that and get the same result: all HTML files are remade, PDFs are untouched. ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Issue 1852 in lilypond: manuals needs more explicit dependencies
Comment #45 on issue 1852 by julien.r...@gmail.com: manuals needs more explicit dependencies http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1852 I think you would do it this way, on the up-to-date machine: git checkout d30221fa73101baffcb05ec49ec04d366a471824~1 to return to a tree that is one commit before this patch, then test the build (starting from a new build dir: make, make doc, and make doc again) and report back. When you're done, git checkout master to return to an up-to-date tree. Thanks. ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Issue 1852 in lilypond: manuals needs more explicit dependencies
Comment #44 on issue 1852 by philehol...@gmail.com: manuals needs more explicit dependencies http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1852 I could try this in 2 ways: I'd prefer the first if you could guide me. My fast build machine is now up-to-date as of yesterday. I assume I can roll it back to before your changes, but am not familiar enough with git to know how. If you could talk me through it, I can do it. Otherwise I have a not-recently-updated VM on my windows box, but I'm not sure whether it would include the patch you're talking about or not. ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Issue 1852 in lilypond: manuals needs more explicit dependencies
Comment #43 on issue 1852 by julien.r...@gmail.com: manuals needs more explicit dependencies http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1852 Phil, the rebuilding of the html pages with every `make doc' is a real problem, I also mention this problem in issue 1526. I think that I experienced html pages being rebuilt before submitting the patch for the current issue, but I can't rely on my memory very well and I don't have access to my development machine to test with an older git checkout. Could you please confirm or infirm that the problem was introduced by the patch from the current issue? ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Issue 1852 in lilypond: manuals needs more explicit dependencies
Comment #42 on issue 1852 by philehol...@gmail.com: manuals needs more explicit dependencies http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1852 I was referring to running make doc. Then making no further changes and waiting 10 minutes, then running make doc again. On my system all the .html files have a new timestamp. ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Issue 1852 in lilypond: manuals needs more explicit dependencies
Comment #41 on issue 1852 by adam.spi...@gmail.com: manuals needs more explicit dependencies http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1852 Phil - this sounds bad. I could try to verify if you explain what a 'null make doc' is, and how I should attempt to reproduce. ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Issue 1852 in lilypond: manuals needs more explicit dependencies
Comment #40 on issue 1852 by philehol...@gmail.com: manuals needs more explicit dependencies http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1852 This works. Make a small change to one of the sources for the CG, and only the CG PDF is rebuilt. However, testing this revealed another oddity. It also rebuilds ALL the HTML pages. This is also true of a null make doc - no PDFs are remade, but all the HTML ones are. I'll leave this unverified for now, unless someone wants to open another tracker issue for the "Null doc build rebuilds HTML" issue. ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Issue 1852 in lilypond: manuals needs more explicit dependencies
Updates: Status: Fixed Owner: --- Cc: -janek.li...@gmail.com Labels: -Patch-push fixed_2_15_15 Comment #39 on issue 1852 by percival.music.ca: manuals needs more explicit dependencies http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1852 pushed d30221fa73101baffcb05ec49ec04d366a471824 ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Issue 1852 in lilypond: manuals needs more explicit dependencies
Updates: Labels: -Patch-countdown Patch-push Comment #38 on issue 1852 by colinpkc...@gmail.com: manuals needs more explicit dependencies http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1852 Counted down to 20111009 ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Issue 1852 in lilypond: manuals needs more explicit dependencies
Comment #36 on issue 1852 by julien.r...@gmail.com: manuals needs more explicit dependencies http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1852#c36 Build dependencies for .texi files (issue 1852). Write .dep files containing make dependency rules for .texi and .itexi files. They allow to simply type `make' to process the doc after changing an included file and have the manuals updated with the minimum amount of processing. These .dep files are generated by recursively scanning for lines starting with @include in the .texi files, and looking up these included files within the include directories that we pass to texinfo. The same is done for .itexi files. The .dep files are included into the build by stepmake/generic-targets.make. With this we can clean up Documentation/GNUmakefile a bit: - Remove the previous apparently unsuccessfull attempt at tracking dependencies with a wildcard, and - Remove dependencies that are caught automatically: only generated files need an explicit dependency, which weblinks.itexi is an example, thus - Add the explicit dependency for weblinks.itexi. http://codereview.appspot.com/5131045 ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Issue 1852 in lilypond: manuals needs more explicit dependencies
Updates: Labels: -Patch-needs_work Patch-review Comment #35 on issue 1852 by pkx1...@gmail.com: manuals needs more explicit dependencies http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1852 (No comment was entered for this change.) ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Issue 1852 in lilypond: manuals needs more explicit dependencies
Comment #34 on issue 1852 by julien.r...@gmail.com: manuals needs more explicit dependencies http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1852 New patchset uploaded to http://codereview.appspot.com/5131045 ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Issue 1852 in lilypond: manuals needs more explicit dependencies
Comment #33 on issue 1852 by julien.r...@gmail.com: manuals needs more explicit dependencies http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1852#c33 Build dependencies for .texi files (issue 1852). Write .dep files containing make dependency rules for .texi files. These .dep files are generated by scanning for lines starting with @include in the .texi files. They are included into the build by the file stepmake/stepmake/generic-targets.make. With proper dependencies it became apparent that the build system does not operate correclty as make would then complain: *** No rule to make target `weblinks.itexi', needed by `out-www/web.texi'. Stop. This was triggered when we added the above dependency rules, and shows that the build system now attempts to build weblinks.itexi before compiling web.texi, but fails to do so because a rule is missing. Thus we add the missing rule to generate weblinks.texi to the local GNUmakefile in the Documentation folder. Another issue are @include for which the included files are in another directory, but that is not reflected in the @include. This produces wrong dependency targets since make would expect the included file in the same directory as the main file. Thus we se @include with the correct relative path in .texi files. http://codereview.appspot.com/5131045 ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Issue 1852 in lilypond: manuals needs more explicit dependencies
Updates: Labels: -Patch-review Patch-needs_work Comment #32 on issue 1852 by colinpkc...@gmail.com: manuals needs more explicit dependencies http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1852 Discussion on Rietveld suggests this isn't quite final, yet. ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Issue 1852 in lilypond: manuals needs more explicit dependencies
Updates: Labels: -Patch-needs_work Patch-review Comment #29 on issue 1852 by janek.li...@gmail.com: manuals needs more explicit dependencies http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1852 This seems to work - i see side-by-side diffs of all files: http://codereview.appspot.com/5162044/ ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Issue 1852 in lilypond: manuals needs more explicit dependencies
Comment #28 on issue 1852 by percival.music.ca: manuals needs more explicit dependencies http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1852 Janek, Please take this seriously. Somebody is trying to help lilypond and is having technical problems. It's your job to help them past those technical problems. In particular, it's your job to do WHATEVER IT TAKES to make the contributor feel welcome and get their work into lilypond. Have you tried searching google for help with /etc/mime.types ? have you tried reading the -devel list archives to find a longer discussion of the issue, and/or alternate solutions? have you tried finding an alternate way of uploading to rietveld? Do whatever you need to do. ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Issue 1852 in lilypond: manuals needs more explicit dependencies
Comment #27 on issue 1852 by janek.li...@gmail.com: manuals needs more explicit dependencies http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1852 But where is /etc/mime.types ? ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Issue 1852 in lilypond: manuals needs more explicit dependencies
Comment #26 on issue 1852 by percival.music.ca: manuals needs more explicit dependencies http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1852 Just follow the instructions in comment 0 of issue 1491. Except you want to fix the handling of .texi files instead of .scm files. ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Issue 1852 in lilypond: manuals needs more explicit dependencies
Comment #25 on issue 1852 by janek.li...@gmail.com: manuals needs more explicit dependencies http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1852 Indeed i should've done this myself, sorry! I've remembered that one of the new contributors uploaded his patch himself and i was mistakenly believing that it was you. I also now see that i didn't read your comment #14 carefully and didn't understand what the problem was. Sorry! And i agree about instructions in CG being buried too deep. I'll try to do something about it. Concerning this patch: i'm not sure how can i fix my git-cl. From the description in issue 1491 i understand that i should add something somewhere in git-cl files, but where exactly? ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Issue 1852 in lilypond: manuals needs more explicit dependencies
Comment #24 on issue 1852 by percival.music.ca: manuals needs more explicit dependencies http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1852 I quite agree; sorry, I should have prefixed my comment 22 with a "Janek:". It's his responsibility to get your patch visible. ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Issue 1852 in lilypond: manuals needs more explicit dependencies
Comment #23 on issue 1852 by julien.r...@gmail.com: manuals needs more explicit dependencies http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1852 I did use Graham's git-cl since the "official" one went offline. I think the patch did not get published to lilypond-de...@gnu.org because I am not registered on that list with my google email address, so the mailman doesn't accept it. OK, so I fail to use Rietveld. Listen, I attached the new patch here in comment 14. Could you please upload it to Rietveld? I did go to some length reading your contributor guide. I had to find the 2.14 version after google pointed me to the 2.12 version, which lacked content. The section for uploading patches is buried at the third heading level, so you can't find it easily; it doesn't show up in the navigation pane on the left. I'm trying to comply with your patch management, which is spread out over two different online tools and two mailing lists, but if it's buggy, what can I do? The discussion in Issue 1491 doesn't ring a bell for me on how to fix my upload. It should be as simple as this google page: I click attach a file, points it to the file, and voilà! ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Issue 1852 in lilypond: manuals needs more explicit dependencies
Updates: Status: Accepted Comment #22 on issue 1852 by percival.music.ca: manuals needs more explicit dependencies http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1852 Get the patch uploaded correctly before you worry about the cc. Make sure the mime type is fixed and that you can see all patched files on rietveld. This has *nothing* to do with the new git-cl work. ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Issue 1852 in lilypond: manuals needs more explicit dependencies
Comment #21 on issue 1852 by brownian.box: manuals needs more explicit dependencies http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1852 Please, why "Patch-needs_work"? Shouldn't it be removed? Please, if this is fixed, drop "fixed_X_Y_Z" here instead. Thanks! ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Issue 1852 in lilypond: manuals needs more explicit dependencies
Comment #20 on issue 1852 by janek.li...@gmail.com: manuals needs more explicit dependencies http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1852 2011/9/27 Janek Warchoł : I have an idea: you have used Graham's new git-cl, didn't you? Maybe it forgot to add CC:lilypond-de...@gnu.org to the issue or something? I think you can check it: go to the issue, click "edit issue" and see what's in CC: field. ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Issue 1852 in lilypond: manuals needs more explicit dependencies
Comment #19 on issue 1852 by janek.li...@gmail.com: manuals needs more explicit dependencies http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1852 Julien > I did click publish now, hope it works. Do I need to add reviewers? You don't need to add reviewers, but i still don't see it. Strange. There should be an e-mail sent to lilypond-devel, with a title containing issue name and number. Janek ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Issue 1852 in lilypond: manuals needs more explicit dependencies
Updates: Labels: Patch-needs_work Comment #18 on issue 1852 by percival.music.ca: manuals needs more explicit dependencies http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1852 we can't review anything until it's uploaded. See issue 1491. ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Issue 1852 in lilypond: manuals needs more explicit dependencies
Comment #17 on issue 1852 by julien.r...@gmail.com: manuals needs more explicit dependencies http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1852 Old issue applied to .tely files and comment 10 comfirms that it works. New issue applies to .texi files and is independent of the previous one. I did click publish now, hope it works. Do I need to add reviewers? ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Issue 1852 in lilypond: manuals needs more explicit dependencies
Comment #16 on issue 1852 by janek.li...@gmail.com: manuals needs more explicit dependencies http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1852 Hi, as i'm the formal owner of this issue, i'd like to know what's its current status. Should 1b99f1907fb77b0f3a0e65725776782c3eeaa025 be reverted or does http://codereview.appspot.com/5131045 apply on top of the previous patch? Should the status of this issue be changed to 'started'? Julien, did you not forget to click "publish" on the new Rietveld issue http://codereview.appspot.com/5131045 ? cheers, Janek ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Issue 1852 in lilypond: manuals needs more explicit dependencies
Comment #15 on issue 1852 by julien.r...@gmail.com: manuals needs more explicit dependencies http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1852 The sed code might be a bit obscure; here's what it produces for contributor.dep: ./out/contributor.texi: contributor.texi ./out/contributor.texi: macros.itexi ./out/contributor.texi: contributor/introduction.itexi ./out/contributor.texi: contributor/quick-start.itexi ./out/contributor.texi: contributor/source-code.itexi ./out/contributor.texi: contributor/compiling.itexi ./out/contributor.texi: contributor/doc-work.itexi ./out/contributor.texi: contributor/website-work.itexi ./out/contributor.texi: contributor/lsr-work.itexi ./out/contributor.texi: contributor/issues.itexi ./out/contributor.texi: contributor/regressions.itexi ./out/contributor.texi: contributor/programming-work.itexi ./out/contributor.texi: contributor/release-work.itexi ./out/contributor.texi: contributor/build-notes.itexi ./out/contributor.texi: contributor/feta-font.itexi ./out/contributor.texi: contributor/administration.itexi ./out/contributor.texi: fdl.itexi ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Issue 1852 in lilypond: manuals needs more explicit dependencies
Comment #14 on issue 1852 by julien.r...@gmail.com: manuals needs more explicit dependencies http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1852 OK apparently git-cl crashed *while* the stuff was being uploaded to Rietveld. The patch there is complete but you can't see the side-by-side diffs for half the files. Here's the patch again. Cheers. Attachments: 0001-Build-dependencies-for-.texi-files-issue-1852.patch 3.7 KB ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Issue 1852 in lilypond: manuals needs more explicit dependencies
Comment #13 on issue 1852 by julien.r...@gmail.com: manuals needs more explicit dependencies http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1852 Since speed is a concern I went with sed. New patch uploaded to http://codereview.appspot.com/5131045 ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Issue 1852 in lilypond: manuals needs more explicit dependencies
Updates: Labels: -fixed_2_15_11 Comment #12 on issue 1852 by percival.music.ca: manuals needs more explicit dependencies http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1852 We generally have all included doc files for manual.texi inside manual/*.itexi The only exceptions are included/*.itexi fdl.itexi macros.itexi common-macros.itexi translations.itexi I can't see an immediate problem with #1, though. It would make the doc compile a bit slower, but not noticeably slower. ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Issue 1852 in lilypond: manuals needs more explicit dependencies
Comment #11 on issue 1852 by julien.r...@gmail.com: manuals needs more explicit dependencies http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1852 I must admit that I overlooked .texi files because I assumed all such files were included files, not main files. I see now that contributor.texi is a main file which links to many included files, and indeed no .dep file is generated. I immediately see a few ways to possibly fix this: 1) Renaming these main .texi files to .tely would work I think, as lilypond-book would track the dependencies and produce .texi and .dep files, or 2) Changing the build rule for .texi files so that they get processed by lilypond-book, or 3) Using grep, sed, or python to search for @include lines in .texi files and write the corresponding .dep file. This requires adding a step to the build rule. ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Issue 1852 in lilypond: manuals needs more explicit dependencies
Comment #10 on issue 1852 by philehol...@googlemail.com: manuals needs more explicit dependencies http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1852 I've tested whether this works, and can confirm that learning is rebuilt if tutorial.itely is edited. :-) The only issue is that contributor is not built by lily-book and so there's no dep file. Before verifying, I think the CG should be updated to make this difference clear. (BTW - I only discovered this because I first tried the fix on contributor) ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Issue 1852 in lilypond: manuals needs more explicit dependencies
Updates: Status: Fixed Labels: -Patch-push fixed_2_15_11 Comment #9 on issue 1852 by percival.music.ca: manuals needs more explicit dependencies http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1852 pushed 1b99f1907fb77b0f3a0e65725776782c3eeaa025 ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Issue 1852 in lilypond: manuals needs more explicit dependencies
Updates: Labels: -Patch-review Patch-push Comment #8 on issue 1852 by colinpkc...@gmail.com: manuals needs more explicit dependencies http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1852 Counted down to 20110914 ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Issue 1852 in lilypond: manuals needs more explicit dependencies
Updates: Status: Started Labels: -Patch-needs_work Patch-review Comment #7 on issue 1852 by pkx1...@gmail.com: manuals needs more explicit dependencies http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1852 Passes make and reg test - took patch from http://codereview.appspot.com/4996044/ rather than the last comment. ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Issue 1852 in lilypond: manuals needs more explicit dependencies
Comment #6 on issue 1852 by julien.r...@gmail.com: manuals needs more explicit dependencies http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1852 Following guidelines: git format-patch origin Attachments: 0001-Fix-issue-1852-manuals-needs-more-explicit-dependenc.patch 1.6 KB ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Issue 1852 in lilypond: manuals needs more explicit dependencies
Updates: Cc: janek.li...@gmail.com Comment #5 on issue 1852 by percival.music.ca: manuals needs more explicit dependencies http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1852 ok. Janek will upload this to rietveld so that we can easily review the patch. ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Issue 1852 in lilypond: manuals needs more explicit dependencies
Comment #4 on issue 1852 by julien.r...@gmail.com: manuals needs more explicit dependencies http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1852 Well, not a problem, 2.6 is not really needed so I removed that. In the meantime I also found another bug, namely that global_options.format was used as the file extension, which works by chance for texi and html output, but is otherwise completely wrong. Attachments: 1852-make-doc-dependencies-v2.patch 1.5 KB ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Issue 1852 in lilypond: manuals needs more explicit dependencies
Updates: Labels: Patch-needs_work Comment #3 on issue 1852 by percival.music.ca: manuals needs more explicit dependencies http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1852 That is very unfortunate; we currently use python 2.4 in GUB, and updating to python 2.6 or 2.7 would probably require 20 hours (or more!) of work. ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Issue 1852 in lilypond: manuals needs more explicit dependencies
Comment #2 on issue 1852 by julien.r...@gmail.com: manuals needs more explicit dependencies http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1852 (the fix using os..path.relpath requires python 2.6) ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Issue 1852 in lilypond: manuals needs more explicit dependencies
Comment #1 on issue 1852 by julien.r...@gmail.com: manuals needs more explicit dependencies http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1852 lilypond-book produces *.dep files tracking the dependencies of *.tely project files. These are included into the build process in stepmake/stepmake/generic-targets.make: -include $(outdir)/dummy.dep $(wildcard $(outdir)/*.dep) The - suppresses any error messages, the dummy.dep files are always created empty. These *.dep files are supposed to be parsed by make and effectively add dependencies for each input .tely file. The problem is that the dependency rules in the *.dep files do not match the dependency rules during the build process. For example, Documentation/out/usage.dep has /home/jrioux/git/lilypond/Documentation/out/usage.texi: usage.tely macros.itexi /home/jrioux/git/lilypond/Documentation/out/version.itexi common-macros.itexi usage/running.itely usage/updating.itely usage/lilypond-book.itely usage/external.itely Notice the mixing of absolute and relative paths. The relative paths are relative to Documentation, which is good. Adjusting lilypond-book.py to use a relative path in the target seems to fix the issue. Attachments: 1852-make-doc-dependencies.patch 650 bytes ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Issue 1852 in lilypond: manuals needs more explicit dependencies
Status: Accepted Owner: Labels: Type-Maintainability Frog New issue 1852 by percival.music.ca: manuals needs more explicit dependencies http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1852 The build system make doc doesn't check if the files in a subdirectory have changed. This leads to silly suggestions like touch Documentation/*.te?? to tell make to check them all. AFAIK this can be fixed by explicitly listing dependencies inside directories like learning/ for learning.tely. Or maybe using something like $(call-wildcard learning/*.itely) ETA: 30 minutes if you're familiar with make and my suspicion is correct. This issue has a really good payoff-vs-effort ratio. ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
