[MPlayer-DOCS] Problem compiling DOCS
Diego Biurrun
diego at biurrun.de
Sat Jan 24 03:52:01 CET 2004
Torinthiel writes:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 06:30:42PM -0500, D Richard Felker III wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 07:54:31PM +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, 21 January 2004 at 16:43, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > However, I am open to suggestions. Torinthiel also said he prefers to
> > > > see some of the commands. But we should settle on some sensible rule
> > > > IMO. Is there some established standard for what to suppress in
> > > > (MPlayer) Makefiles? Or should we simply remove all @?
> > >
> > > I say remove. I like to see what went wrong *if* something does go wrong.
> >
> > I agree totally. One of the biggest reasons I hate automake/libtool is
> > that it uses @ in combination with echo to LIE to you about which
> > commands it's running (so you see the commands if _should_ be running
> > if it weren't doing crap behind your back, instead of the crap it's
> > really doing behind your back...).
>
> Well, that's why I said only thing I think should have @ is for.
OK, there seems to be a consensus. I'll remove all @.
> > IMO the sorts of ugly for loops and stuff people ususally use @ for in
> > makefiles _do_ _not_ _belong_ in makefiles. You can do the same
> > effects by arranging the dependencies correctly.
>
> Usually yes. But how do you want to do it in documentation making?
> Without adding two new targets for every language? 'Cos that would be
> messy and hard to maintain Makefile for me.
Disagree. If we just have to add one language suffix in one place
this should not be a problem. But we have to do this in configure
ATM, so no big difference.
Diego
More information about the MPlayer-DOCS
mailing list