[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] docs: other issues with parallel BSD make (was: Re: bug#9245
Re: [PATCH] docs: other issues with parallel BSD make (was: Re: bug#9245: FreeBSD make in concurrent mode report spurious success in automake-generated tests harness)
Tue, 16 Aug 2011 21:03:06 +0200
KMail/1.13.3 (Linux/2.6.30-2-686; KDE/4.4.4; i686; ; )
On Tuesday 16 August 2011, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2011, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> >> I'll have a "draft patch" read soonish. There is ample room for
> >> improvements,
> >> but I'll post it here anyway since it can benefit from early feedback.
> > Here it is. As usual, comments and suggestions welcome.
> The proposed documentation seems quite useful. It does have a flaw in
> that it identifies 'make' programs based on the operating system where
> they were currently found (e.g. "FreeBSD make"). The issues may
> pertain to only certain versions of such make programs, or the 'make'
> associated with an OS may be entirely supplanted (or optionally
> replaced) with a 'make' which offers completely different behavior.
> What is useful information today may become 'lore' in a few years so
> it would be good to add additional data so that the reader (and
> documentation maintainer) knows the vintage of the information.
That's a good point. Do you think it would be OK to put such information
only in Texinfo comments for the moment, and then, as a second and later
step, devise a way to report it in the final manual too? This second step
wouldn't be trivial IMHO, since we would need to present such version
information in a way that is at the same time clear, non-obtrusive and
complete (mabe we could take a look at how Gnulib does this?). Finally,
as a third step, we might try to revisit the existing examples of bugs
and portability pitfalls, and try to pin-point them to a precise version
of the system/tools used (in case this version is not already reported).