From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5858 invoked by alias); 1 Jan 2011 09:38:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 5850 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Jan 2011 09:38:28 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 01 Jan 2011 09:38:23 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p019cJ7A027380 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 1 Jan 2011 04:38:19 -0500 Received: from host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p019cGoT002314 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 1 Jan 2011 04:38:18 -0500 Received: from host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p019cGj3024729; Sat, 1 Jan 2011 10:38:16 +0100 Received: (from jkratoch@localhost) by host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id p019cF1E024728; Sat, 1 Jan 2011 10:38:15 +0100 Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2011 09:38:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, tromey@redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch] make info regression on --with-system-readline Message-ID: <20110101093815.GA24535@host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net> References: <20110101011319.GA27139@host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <8339pdq8la.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8339pdq8la.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-01/txt/msg00006.txt.bz2 On Sat, 01 Jan 2011 10:25:21 +0100, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > Aren't you supposed to "make distclean" whenever you reconfigure? In normal projects I am not used to. In GDB I do "make clean" but it may not be fully reliable, I believe there is more broken in GDB build system. But even if you do just first configure it is now broken in GDB as the files get inappropriately distributed. > E.g., what about all the *.o files you didn't remove? They depend on config.h which gets regenerated. Maybe if you only change CFLAGS and config.h stays the same (and it preserves its timestamp). you would need `make clean'. > However, I don't like rules that depend of Makefiles, because they > tend to be re-run too much for no good reason. Note that this will > re-make the docs each time you reconfigure, even if you didn't change > the configuration. We can stamp etc. GDBvn.texi if it is a concern (I do not find it so). > > Another issue is that GDBvn.texi and gdb-cfg.texi should not be distributed. > > How can we not distribute them when gdb.texinfo @include's them, and > needs that for setting some of the variables the manual uses? If we > don't distribute them, end users will be unable to rebuild the manual. > What am I missing here? Both files are generated from gdb/doc/Makefile. Thanks, Jan