Re: Problem with make

[David Kastrup]

Peekay Ex <address@hidden> writes:

> 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.

All of my patches tend to touch lily/parser.yy and lily/lexer.ll and not
much else.

-- 
David Kastrup