bug-automake
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: automake/535: Extract correct man section from files in MAN_MANS


From: Ralf Wildenhues
Subject: Re: automake/535: Extract correct man section from files in MAN_MANS
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2009 21:02:33 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)

Hello Peter,

* Peter Breitenlohner wrote on Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 04:56:10PM CET:
> On Sat, 7 Mar 2009, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>>
>> I don't know a good way to fix this without adding any forks at all, but
>> the patch below fixes the issue for master with adding two forks per set
>> of man pages installed.  It uses the same regex for matching the section
>> as is used in automake.in.

> I think there is a way to reduce the number of forks, replacing the two
> loops by one such that one could extract ext rather early and reuse it later
> on.  However, this would be major surgery and require extensive testing.

Let's not go this way.  The current git master version works well in
this regard, with less than a dozen forks per 40 manpages that go in
the same directory, of those typically only one or two `install'
commands (which are by far the most expensive of them).

> This is for branch-1-10. Perhaps something analogous can be done for the new
> scheme in git master (just updated my local copy, still have to study it).
>
> Comments?

Well, your scheme still forks once per file, when computing $ext.
Don't worry about it, I'm not interested in making branch-1-10 faster,
all that work has gone into git master already and will be in 1.11.

>>> +# Let's play with $DESTDIR too, it shouldn't hurt.
>>> +./configure --prefix='' --mandir=/man
>>
>> Let's just omit --prefix here, rather than passing an empty one.
>> Also, let's add a 'make uninstall' as well as the notrans man pages,
>> so all changed code paths are exercised; and rename a bit, so we can
>> better test that no wrong directories are created.
>
> Shall I try to do that, or will you (knowing better exactly what you have in
> mind)?

Erm, I've already done all that in the patch that I posted; and I have
applied to master.  So there is nothing left to do on this topic, except
to argue (if you want) that this should be fixed in branch-1-10.  :-)

Cheers,
Ralf




reply via email to

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