[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[avr-libc-dev] Re: circ dep fix
From: |
Theodore Roth |
Subject: |
[avr-libc-dev] Re: circ dep fix |
Date: |
Fri, 2 Aug 2002 10:37:32 -0600 (MDT) |
On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Joerg Wunsch wrote:
:) Well, i'd rather prefer to separate them, so that bug fixes and
:) feature extensions remain distinct in CVS. Also, i'm not even sure
:) i like my current way of doing things :), it's merely a proposal.
I think a better approach for the pdf version would be to add
--with-pdlatex to configure.in.
:)
:) It should not be much of a problem when you commit something to that
:) file, that's what the `C' in CVS stands for. Coming from FreeBSD
:) which has been using CVS for almost ten years in a project joining
:) several hundred committers, i'm also used to get an unresolvable CVS
:) conflict occasionally that needs to be resolved manually. ;-)
I agree. I was just time constrained and lazy last night. Sorry.
:)
:) So feel free to commit the circular dependency fix first, the PDF
:) changes probably need to wait a bit to mature.
I'll make the fix today.
:) Hmm, i need to see the resulting Makefile.am before judging that. But
:) what occurs to me when seeing this: it's perhaps a bad idea to have
:) targets that are named similar to a directory. While the current
:) Makefile structure is heavily gmake-bound anyway (by using ${MAKE} -C
:) ${dir}), this could in theory be fixed (cd ${dir} && ${MAKE}. Other
:) make utilities might stumble across it then since they evaluate the
:) timestamp for that directory which is rather intended to be a `phony'
:) target.
I agree with dir targets being sub-optimal. It was a hack on my part which
I will try to clean up.
:)
:) So in short, i prefer the dox-foo style (also for the other targets
:) like latex).
There's another problem I had last night. Edit some Makefile.am, rerun
reconf, then run `make clean` in the build dir. Goes into a nice infinite
loop. Grrrr! I think this is an artifact of the multilib setup, but since
I didn't write that, it will take a bit more investigating to figure out
the problem.
Can we move this discussion to the avr-libc-dev list so there's a record
of it and others can see what we're doing? I've CC'd the list, so just
reply to the list instead of me directly.
Ted Roth
- [avr-libc-dev] Re: circ dep fix,
Theodore Roth <=
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] Re: circ dep fix, Theodore Roth, 2002/08/02
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] Re: circ dep fix, Joerg Wunsch, 2002/08/03
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] Re: circ dep fix, Theodore A. Roth, 2002/08/03
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] Re: circ dep fix, Joerg Wunsch, 2002/08/04
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] Re: circ dep fix, Theodore A. Roth, 2002/08/04
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] Re: circ dep fix, Joerg Wunsch, 2002/08/04
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] Re: circ dep fix, Theodore A. Roth, 2002/08/04
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] Re: circ dep fix, Joerg Wunsch, 2002/08/05
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] Re: circ dep fix, Joerg Wunsch, 2002/08/05
- Re: [avr-libc-dev] Re: circ dep fix, Theodore Roth, 2002/08/05