Can we have a make target without docs?

[emacs-ess]

Can we have a make target without docs?

[vspinu]

lisp && make' that doesn't feel right to me. I'd prefer the makefile have a
target that just builds the lisp.

I'm more than willing to make a pull-request that does this if that'd be easier.

Sure, would be great. Can you please do it.

[mmaechler]

vwood

on Wed, 30 May 2012 15:41:21 -0700 writes:

> My main problem is using el-get to build and use ESS on windows.  On
> windows I don't have tex installed, but the make clean, make all el-get
> recipe tries to build the documentation which fails, (which causes the
> package to not be included). Certainly having tex installed shouldn't
> be a requirement to use ESS.

> While this is a bit of an el-get problem, it's a problem for el-get
> because there is no target that just builds the lisp. While this can be
> fixed by 'cd lisp && make' that doesn't feel right to me. I'd prefer
> the makefile have a target that just builds the lisp.

Ok, that's a reasonable wish.
However, 'make all' will continue to build all, including doc.

I would have called the target 'lisp'
so just added

lisp: etc/SVN-REVISION
cd lisp; $(MAKE)

to the Makefile.
Is 'el-get' really an Emacs standard target that we should use instead
of my simple 'lisp' above?

> I'm more than willing to make a pull-request that does this if that'd
> be easier.

No, for such a simple change, e-mail with ESS-core (or ESS-help)
is much easier.

Martin

[mmaechler]

Ping !

Can I please get an answer about my 'el-get' vs 'lisp'
question below.

I do want to release ESS today if possible!
Martin

Martin Maechler [email protected]
on Thu, 31 May 2012 10:59:00 +0200 writes:

vwood
>>>>>>
on Wed, 30 May 2012 15:41:21 -0700 writes:

>> My main problem is using el-get to build and use ESS on
>> windows.  On windows I don't have tex installed, but the
>> make clean, make all el-get recipe tries to build the
>> documentation which fails, (which causes the package to
>> not be included). Certainly having tex installed
>> shouldn't be a requirement to use ESS.

>> While this is a bit of an el-get problem, it's a problem
>> for el-get because there is no target that just builds
>> the lisp. While this can be fixed by 'cd lisp && make'
>> that doesn't feel right to me. I'd prefer the makefile
>> have a target that just builds the lisp.

> Ok, that's a reasonable wish.  However, 'make all' will
> continue to build all, including doc.

> I would have called the target 'lisp' so just added

> lisp: etc/SVN-REVISION cd lisp; $(MAKE)

> to the Makefile.  Is 'el-get' really an Emacs standard
> target that we should use *instead* of my simple 'lisp'
> above?


>> I'm more than willing to make a pull-request that does
>> this if that'd be easier.

> No, for such a simple change, e-mail with ESS-core (or
> ESS-help) is much easier.

> Martin

> _______________________________________________ ESS-core
> list: https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/ess-core

[vspinu]

to the Makefile. Is 'el-get' really an Emacs standard
target that we should use instead of my simple 'lisp'
above?

I don't think it's a standard. Let's just have 'lisp' target; it's clear
what it means. As far as I can see el-get works with install recipes and
really doesn't care about the name of the target.

Vitalie.

[mmaechler]

Vitalie Spinu
on Fri, 1 Jun 2012 01:03:32 -0700 writes:

>>> to the Makefile.  Is 'el-get' really an Emacs standard
>>> target that we should use *instead* of my simple 'lisp'
>>> above?

> I don't think it's a standard. Let's just have 'lisp'
> target; it's clear what it means. As far as I can see
> el-get works with install recipes and really doesn't care
> about the name of the target.

> Vitalie.

Thanks, Vitalie. Yes, so we'll have "lisp" as new make target;
and 'vwood' can use 'make lisp' in his/her recipe.

Martin