[MPlayer-DOCS] Problem compiling DOCS

[Diego Biurrun]

Torinthiel writes:
 > 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.

OK, there seems to be a consensus.  I'll remove all @.

 > > 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.

Disagree.  If we just have to add one language suffix in one place
this should not be a problem.  But we have to do this in configure
ATM, so no big difference.

Diego