bug-zile
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Bug-zile] Problems generating manpage


From: Gary V. Vaughan
Subject: Re: [Bug-zile] Problems generating manpage
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2014 23:30:44 +0100

Hi Stefan,

On Aug 3, 2014, at 12:41 AM, Stefan Husmann <address@hidden> wrote:

> Am 02.08.2014 um 20:16 schrieb Gary V. Vaughan:
>> Hi Stefan,
>> 
>> On Aug 1, 2014, at 9:26 PM, Gary V. Vaughan <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>> On 01 Aug 2014, at 21:01, Stefan Husmann <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I think the relevant lines are nearly at the end.
>>>> File 'doc/.ldocs' does not exist.
>>>>       Considering target file 'doc'.
>>>>        File 'doc' does not exist.               # why "file doc"? Should 
>>>> be a directory.
>>>>        Looking for an implicit rule for 'doc'.
>>>>        Trying pattern rule with stem 'doc'.
>>>>        Trying implicit prerequisite 'doc,v'.
>>>>        Trying pattern rule with stem 'doc'.
>>>>        Trying implicit prerequisite 'RCS/doc,v'.
>>>>        Trying pattern rule with stem 'doc'.
>>>>        Trying implicit prerequisite 'RCS/doc'.
>>>>        Trying pattern rule with stem 'doc'.
>>>>        Trying implicit prerequisite 's.doc'.
>>>>        Trying pattern rule with stem 'doc'.
>>>>        Trying implicit prerequisite 'SCCS/s.doc'.
>>>>        No implicit rule found for 'doc'.
>>>>        Finished prerequisites of target file 'doc'.
>>>>       Must remake target 'doc'.
>>>> 
>>>> That fails.
>>>> If it is relevant: I have gnumake 4.0 and gcc 4.9.1.
>>> 
>>> Hmmm. That's exactly the bug I thought I'd fixed already.  Thanks for the
>> reupload, I'll take a proper look over the weekend.
>> 
>> Sorry for the delay.  I reintroduced the bug somehow without noticing, so
>> I need to find a way to get Travis to exercise parallel make so that it
>> doesn't happen again.
>> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I can confirm that it works fine now (revision 3844). Thanks!

Great!  Thanks for letting me know :)

> BTW., my bug report has been closed as "not a bug". :(
> 
> Arch's policy regarding dependencies is rather vague. Maybe it can be 
> summarized as "try to keep lists small".
> 
> There is a tool name namcap that encourages this by messages like "dependency 
> "a" is already satisfied" if a dependency is in the chain. The build recipes 
> for the official packages (PKGBUILDs) can easily be accessed and changed if 
> someone needs something that the official package has not or has too much.
> 
> There also is the concept of optional depends, but these have no technical 
> effect other than a message on screen and in the logfile what could be needed 
> additionally for fulfilling special purposes.

No worries.  As long as it's internally consistent, who am I to complain?  :-)

Cheers,
-- 
Gary V. Vaughan (gary AT vaughan DOT pe)

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]