lilypond-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: Further work on reducing make doc output - GOP 9


From: Phil Holmes
Subject: Re: Further work on reducing make doc output - GOP 9
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 14:47:23 -0000

----- Original Message ----- From: "Phil Holmes" <address@hidden>
To: "Devel" <address@hidden>
Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2011 11:34 AM
Subject: Further work on reducing make doc output - GOP 9


I've written a shell script that has as its arguments a command line and a
logfile.  It runs the command, sending the output from that command to the
logfile.  It then returns the error status from the command line.  If an
error occurs, it displays a message indicating the name of the logfile. We
should be able to use this to reduce the output of make doc considerably,
while at the same time retaining the output in logfiles and pointing where
to look in the event of a failure.

I attach a set of files that can be used to show this in action. Note that
one of the .texi files includes a file with errors, and, FWIW, texi2html
continues happily, whereas texi2pdf stops on the error.  This is also true
even with error-limit =0 - texi2html seems to view errored input as simply
something worth warning about. Also note the --clean option for texi2pdf - this reduces the cruft in the output directory a lot, and since we now have a separate logfile, I don't know of a reason to keep it. Please let me know
if anyone knows different.

I will convert this to a patch for proper review, but wanted those who
understand Unix scripts to pass their eyes over a simple version first.

TIA.


OK - so I don't think anyone has looked at this. I think I've got 3 options: ask again here; make a patch from the test files I created, make a new directory in my lilypond-git directory and put them up, standalone, as a patch on Rietveld for review; or implement this system on the make doc build system and put the patch for review. I'm pretty much against the last one, owing to the chances of wasted time. Could anyone advise on the first 2 options?

--
Phil Holmes





reply via email to

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