[MPlayer-DOCS] Problem compiling DOCS

[Torinthiel]

On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 06:30:42PM -0500, D Richard Felker III wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 07:54:31PM +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 21 January 2004 at 16:43, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > [...]
> > > However, I am open to suggestions.  Torinthiel also said he prefers to
> > > see some of the commands.  But we should settle on some sensible rule
> > > IMO.  Is there some established standard for what to suppress in
> > > (MPlayer) Makefiles?  Or should we simply remove all @?
> > 
> > I say remove. I like to see what went wrong *if* something does go wrong.
> 
> I agree totally. One of the biggest reasons I hate automake/libtool is
> that it uses @ in combination with echo to LIE to you about which
> commands it's running (so you see the commands if _should_ be running
> if it weren't doing crap behind your back, instead of the crap it's
> really doing behind your back...).

Well, that's why I said only thing I think should have @ is for.

> IMO the sorts of ugly for loops and stuff people ususally use @ for in
> makefiles _do_ _not_ _belong_ in makefiles. You can do the same
> effects by arranging the dependencies correctly.

Usually yes. But how do you want to do it in documentation making?
Without adding two new targets for every language? 'Cos that would be
messy and hard to maintain Makefile for me.
Torinthiel

-- 
 Waclaw "Torinthiel" Schiller       GG#: 542916, 3073512
   torinthiel(at)wp(dot)pl
   gpg: B06901F1 fpr: FAA3 559F CAE9 34DE CDC8  7346 2B6E 39F2 B069 01F1
 "No classmates may be used during this examination"
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/mplayer-docs/attachments/20040122/4f747a87/attachment.pgp>