On 10/25/2012 04:25 PM, Bernhard Voelker wrote:
On 10/25/2012 04:08 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
Bernhard Voelker wrote:
Isn't it Due to lack on the build system, ...?
I.e. coreutils could be built on system A lacking perl,
and then be installed on system B which has perl. The above
text would
Stefano Lattarini wrote:
On 10/25/2012 04:25 PM, Bernhard Voelker wrote:
On 10/25/2012 04:08 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
Bernhard Voelker wrote:
Isn't it Due to lack on the build system, ...?
I.e. coreutils could be built on system A lacking perl,
and then be installed on system B which has
On 10/26/2012 10:34 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
+** Build-related
+
+ The generated man/*.1 man pages are no longer distributed. Building
+ without perl, you would create stub man pages, and besides would be
+ unable to run a significant percentage of the tests (so don't do that!).
+ Thus,
Pádraig Brady wrote:
On 10/26/2012 10:34 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
+** Build-related
+
+ The generated man/*.1 man pages are no longer distributed. Building
+ without perl, you would create stub man pages, and besides would be
+ unable to run a significant percentage of the tests (so
On 10/26/2012 10:50 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
Pádraig Brady wrote:
On 10/26/2012 10:34 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
+** Build-related
+
+ The generated man/*.1 man pages are no longer distributed. Building
+ without perl, you would create stub man pages, and besides would be
+ unable to run a
On 10/25/2012 04:25 PM, Bernhard Voelker wrote:
On 10/25/2012 04:08 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
Bernhard Voelker wrote:
Isn't it Due to lack on the build system, ...?
I.e. coreutils could be built on system A lacking perl,
and then be installed on system B which has perl. The above
text would
On 10/26/2012 10:34 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
+** Build-related
+
+ The generated man/*.1 man pages are no longer distributed. Building
+ without perl, you would create stub man pages, and besides would be
+ unable to run a significant percentage of the tests (so don't do that!).
+ Thus,
Pádraig Brady wrote:
On 10/26/2012 10:34 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
+** Build-related
+
+ The generated man/*.1 man pages are no longer distributed. Building
+ without perl, you would create stub man pages, and besides would be
+ unable to run a significant percentage of the tests (so
Stefano Lattarini wrote:
On 10/25/2012 04:25 PM, Bernhard Voelker wrote:
On 10/25/2012 04:08 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
Bernhard Voelker wrote:
Isn't it Due to lack on the build system, ...?
I.e. coreutils could be built on system A lacking perl,
and then be installed on system B which has
Stefano Lattarini wrote:
...
Here is the updated patch. Sorry for the noise,
Stefano
88888888888
From f61dcb763975c1aab299fa9678ea180d70db6acf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
Message-Id:
Bernhard Voelker wrote:
On 10/25/2012 03:37 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
-Due to lack of perl on your system, the GNU coreutils build system
-hasn't been able to create the manual page for
+Due to lack of perl on your system, the $source build system
+failed to create the manual page for
Isn't
On 10/25/2012 04:08 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
Bernhard Voelker wrote:
Isn't it Due to lack on the build system, ...?
I.e. coreutils could be built on system A lacking perl,
and then be installed on system B which has perl. The above
text would be misleading in this case.
Good point.
I've
Jim Meyering wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
...
I have mixed feelings. If someone is modifying sources and expecting
to be able to rebuild, they'd better have developer tools like perl.
On the other hand, I dislike distributing a deliberately hamstrung
Makefile.in, even though this wart is
On 10/24/2012 10:54 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
Pádraig Brady wrote:
`echo warning; touch $manpage`.
Sounds good. I.e., it sounds like we want Stefano's patch, after all.
As you recall, a nice side effect is that we will
no longer distribute the generated man/*.1 files.
Stefano, would
Pádraig Brady wrote:
On 10/24/2012 09:54 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
Sounds good. I.e., it sounds like we want Stefano's patch, after all.
As you recall, a nice side effect is that we will
no longer distribute the generated man/*.1 files.
Well if we don't distribute the .1 files,
wouldn't
On 10/24/2012 12:38 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
On 10/24/2012 11:31 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
On 10/24/2012 10:54 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
Pádraig Brady wrote:
`echo warning; touch $manpage`.
Sounds good. I.e., it sounds like we want Stefano's patch, after all.
As you recall, a nice
Stefano Lattarini wrote:
Here is the updated patch. Sorry for the noise,
...
Subject: [PATCH] build: graceful degradation in man pages generation if perl
is lacking
Thank you for the updated patch.
Fixes coreutils bug#12715.
Since commit v8.19-118-g57da212, our 'dist-hook' rule tweaks
: [PATCH] build: do not require help2man at
build-from-tarball time
Stefano Lattarini wrote:
Here is the updated patch. Sorry for the noise,
...
Subject: [PATCH] build: graceful degradation in man pages
generation if perl
is lacking
Does anyone know of a well-known environment
Objet: bug#12715: [PATCH] build: do not require help2man at
build-from-tarball time
Stefano Lattarini wrote:
Here is the updated patch. Sorry for the noise,
...
Subject: [PATCH] build: graceful degradation in man pages
generation if perl
is lacking
Does anyone know of a well-known
On 10/24/2012 11:31 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
On 10/24/2012 10:54 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
Pádraig Brady wrote:
`echo warning; touch $manpage`.
Sounds good. I.e., it sounds like we want Stefano's patch, after all.
As you recall, a nice side effect is that we will
no longer distribute
On 10/24/2012 12:38 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
On 10/24/2012 11:31 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
On 10/24/2012 10:54 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
Pádraig Brady wrote:
`echo warning; touch $manpage`.
Sounds good. I.e., it sounds like we want Stefano's patch, after all.
As you recall, a nice
Objet: bug#12715: [PATCH] build: do not require help2man at
build-from-tarball time
Stefano Lattarini wrote:
Here is the updated patch. Sorry for the noise,
...
Subject: [PATCH] build: graceful degradation in man pages
generation if perl
is lacking
Does anyone know of a well-known
On 09/16/2012 01:46 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
i wonder why coreutils ships with help2man at all considering it's released
as
a dedicated package. the missing helper script can already handle the case
where help2man isn't installed and output a stub man page.
Not anymore, starting from
Mike Frysinger wrote:
...
I have mixed feelings. If someone is modifying sources and expecting
to be able to rebuild, they'd better have developer tools like perl.
On the other hand, I dislike distributing a deliberately hamstrung
Makefile.in, even though this wart is only in a generated
57da212a95054cc230ffb00f38ea655c798926f8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jim Meyering meyer...@redhat.com
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2012 19:27:25 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] build: do not require help2man at build-from-tarball
time
But do retain full dependencies when building from a git clone.
We do this by converting
: Jim Meyering meyer...@redhat.com
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2012 19:27:25 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] build: do not require help2man at build-from-tarball time
But do retain full dependencies when building from a git clone.
We do this by converting the full dependency (of the .1 file on
the binary we run
57da212a95054cc230ffb00f38ea655c798926f8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jim Meyering meyer...@redhat.com
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2012 19:27:25 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] build: do not require help2man at build-from-tarball time
But do retain full dependencies when building from a git clone.
We do this by converting the full
57da212a95054cc230ffb00f38ea655c798926f8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jim Meyering meyer...@redhat.com
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2012 19:27:25 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] build: do not require help2man at build-from-tarball time
But do retain full dependencies when building from a git clone.
We do
On September 10, 2012 at 1:41 PM Jim Meyering j...@meyering.net wrote:
I want each *existing* .1 file to depend solely on its corresponding .c file.
However, when a .1 file does not exist, *then* I want it to depend on
its corresponding executable.
I.e., I do *not* want to rebuild an existing
Stefano Lattarini wrote:
...
Just out of curiosity: is [test FILE -nt OTHER_FILE] a feature in POSIX?
Not in any current standard.
Anyway, maybe it could be emulated with find -newer or something
similar...
Sure, but not worth it, because some find programs probably lack support
for the
30 matches
Mail list logo
