Re: Problem with make

[Peekay Ex]

Hello,

On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 6:49 PM, Graham Percival
<address@hidden> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 06:22:55PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Graham Percival"
>> <address@hidden>
>> >On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 10:17:50AM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
>> >>I'd like to add a note to this effect in the CG - anyone object?
>> >
>> >yes; I'd rather see an issue in the tracker instead.
>>
>> Can I suggest that this is rather overkill for an update to the CG?
>> I'd not disagree at all over notation ref, or code, but the CG isn't
>> supposed to be finely crafted words, it's supposed to be a quick
>> source of reference for contributors.  You'll note that I thought
>> pushing directly to it was OK when I added stuff about regtest
>> comparisons.  I think this is the same.
>
> oh, sorry, I was unclear.  I don't want to see this bug documented
> in the CG; I want to see this bug fixed.  It's going to be a 1-3
> line fix to some build file.  I'm optimistic that this can be
> achieved within a week.  As such, I don't want an extra note in
> the CG that we'll have to remove in a few days.
>
> Cheers,
> - Graham
>

if it is of any use, the last 3 patches I have just tested for David,
none gave me make failures at all. I even did two of them again twice,
just to see if it was a fluke. So it seems to be the 'type' of files
that get patched perhaps that generate this oddity?

Reitveld issues 5023044, 5090045, 5083045.

regards


-- 
--
James