Re: Issue 1852 in lilypond: manuals needs more explicit dependencies

2011-11-07 Thread lilypond


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

2011-11-07 Thread lilypond

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

2011-11-07 Thread lilypond


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

2011-11-07 Thread lilypond


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

2011-11-07 Thread lilypond


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

2011-11-07 Thread lilypond


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

2011-11-07 Thread lilypond


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

2011-11-07 Thread lilypond


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

2011-11-07 Thread lilypond


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

2011-11-07 Thread lilypond


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

2011-11-06 Thread lilypond


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

2011-10-11 Thread lilypond

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

2011-10-09 Thread lilypond

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

2011-10-04 Thread lilypond


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

2011-10-03 Thread lilypond

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

2011-10-01 Thread lilypond


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

2011-10-01 Thread lilypond


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

2011-09-30 Thread lilypond

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

2011-09-30 Thread lilypond

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

2011-09-29 Thread lilypond


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

2011-09-28 Thread lilypond


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

2011-09-27 Thread lilypond


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

2011-09-27 Thread lilypond


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

2011-09-27 Thread lilypond


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

2011-09-27 Thread lilypond


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

2011-09-27 Thread lilypond

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

2011-09-27 Thread lilypond


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

2011-09-26 Thread lilypond


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

2011-09-26 Thread lilypond


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

2011-09-26 Thread lilypond

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

2011-09-26 Thread lilypond


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

2011-09-26 Thread lilypond


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

2011-09-26 Thread lilypond


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

2011-09-26 Thread lilypond


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

2011-09-26 Thread lilypond


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

2011-09-25 Thread lilypond

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

2011-09-25 Thread lilypond


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

2011-09-25 Thread lilypond


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

2011-09-16 Thread lilypond

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

2011-09-14 Thread lilypond

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

2011-09-10 Thread lilypond

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

2011-09-09 Thread lilypond


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

2011-09-04 Thread lilypond

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

2011-09-03 Thread lilypond


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

2011-09-02 Thread lilypond

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

2011-09-02 Thread lilypond


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

2011-09-02 Thread lilypond


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