Bootstrap shouldn't give up due to missing xrefs in the manual

Bootstrap shouldn't give up due to missing xrefs in the manual

[Richard Stallman]

Does this patch eliminate the problem?

*** Makefile.in	11 Nov 2004 09:58:10 -0500	1.298
--- Makefile.in	30 Nov 2004 21:19:32 -0500	
***************
*** 719,727 ****
  # put the info files in $(srcdir),
  # so we can do ok running make in the build dir.
  info: force-info
! 	(cd man; $(MAKE) $(MFLAGS) info)
! 	(cd lispref; $(MAKE) $(MFLAGS) info)
! 	(cd lispintro; $(MAKE) $(MFLAGS) info)
  dvi:
  	(cd man; $(MAKE) $(MFLAGS) dvi)
  	(cd lispref; $(MAKE) $(MFLAGS) elisp.dvi)
--- 719,727 ----
  # put the info files in $(srcdir),
  # so we can do ok running make in the build dir.
  info: force-info
! 	-(cd man; $(MAKE) $(MFLAGS) info)
! 	-(cd lispref; $(MAKE) $(MFLAGS) info)
! 	-(cd lispintro; $(MAKE) $(MFLAGS) info)
  dvi:
  	(cd man; $(MAKE) $(MFLAGS) dvi)
  	(cd lispref; $(MAKE) $(MFLAGS) elisp.dvi)

Re: Bootstrap shouldn't give up due to missing xrefs in the manual

[Denis Bueno]

On 30 Nov 2004, at 21.57, Richard Stallman wrote:

> Does this patch eliminate the problem?

Works for me, on 30 Nov.

uname -a: Darwin johngalt.local 7.6.0 Darwin Kernel Version 7.6.0: Sun 
Oct 10 12:05:27 PDT 2004; root:xnu/xnu-517.9.4.obj~1/RELEASE_PPC  Power 
Macintosh powerpc

>
> *** Makefile.in	11 Nov 2004 09:58:10 -0500	1.298
> --- Makefile.in	30 Nov 2004 21:19:32 -0500	
> ***************
> *** 719,727 ****
>   # put the info files in $(srcdir),
>   # so we can do ok running make in the build dir.
>   info: force-info
> ! 	(cd man; $(MAKE) $(MFLAGS) info)
> ! 	(cd lispref; $(MAKE) $(MFLAGS) info)
> ! 	(cd lispintro; $(MAKE) $(MFLAGS) info)
>   dvi:
>   	(cd man; $(MAKE) $(MFLAGS) dvi)
>   	(cd lispref; $(MAKE) $(MFLAGS) elisp.dvi)
> --- 719,727 ----
>   # put the info files in $(srcdir),
>   # so we can do ok running make in the build dir.
>   info: force-info
> ! 	-(cd man; $(MAKE) $(MFLAGS) info)
> ! 	-(cd lispref; $(MAKE) $(MFLAGS) info)
> ! 	-(cd lispintro; $(MAKE) $(MFLAGS) info)
>   dvi:
>   	(cd man; $(MAKE) $(MFLAGS) dvi)
>   	(cd lispref; $(MAKE) $(MFLAGS) elisp.dvi)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Emacs-devel mailing list
> Emacs-devel@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel
>
>
--
Denis Bueno
PGP: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=0xA1B51B4B&op=index
"Be careful about reading health books. You may die of a misprint." - 
Mark Twain

Re: Bootstrap shouldn't give up due to missing xrefs in the manual

[Luc Teirlinck]

Richard Stallman wrote:

   Does this patch eliminate the problem?

   *** Makefile.in	11 Nov 2004 09:58:10 -0500	1.298
   --- Makefile.in	30 Nov 2004 21:19:32 -0500	
   ***************
   *** 719,727 ****
     # put the info files in $(srcdir),
     # so we can do ok running make in the build dir.
     info: force-info
   ! 	(cd man; $(MAKE) $(MFLAGS) info)
   ! 	(cd lispref; $(MAKE) $(MFLAGS) info)
   ! 	(cd lispintro; $(MAKE) $(MFLAGS) info)
     dvi:
	   (cd man; $(MAKE) $(MFLAGS) dvi)
	   (cd lispref; $(MAKE) $(MFLAGS) elisp.dvi)
   --- 719,727 ----
     # put the info files in $(srcdir),
     # so we can do ok running make in the build dir.
     info: force-info
   ! 	-(cd man; $(MAKE) $(MFLAGS) info)
   ! 	-(cd lispref; $(MAKE) $(MFLAGS) info)
   ! 	-(cd lispintro; $(MAKE) $(MFLAGS) info)
     dvi:
	   (cd man; $(MAKE) $(MFLAGS) dvi)
	   (cd lispref; $(MAKE) $(MFLAGS) elisp.dvi)

For me that gives the same problem with a "missing separator" as your
other patch.  Because it apparently worked for somebody else,
something must be going locally wrong.  I will try to figure out what.
So the problem with your other patch I replied about previously might
be local too.

I can not check out the effects of the patch above because it somehow
breaks bootstrapping for me.  (Again, probably just a local problem.)

But how are people going to notice after your patch that there were
problems building a manual?  Hopefully that will still be completely
apparent and impossible to overlook and hopefully people will still
point it out to emacs-pretest-bug or emacs-devel.  Otherwise, this
could, in my opinion, be a step backward.

Sincerely,

Luc.