Re: Final PATCH for Re: IMPORTANT 3.0 PATCH: gcc_release

[Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>]

On Jun 14, 2001, Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, Mark Mitchell wrote:
>>> If so, we might want to look at the 'html2text' program which
>>> does that and nothing but that and doesn't care about the terminal.
>> Yes, that sounds cleaner.  I was somewhat surprised to see `lynx'
>> in our build machinery.

> Fully agreed.  I based that conversion on an old, but thoroughly exercised
> script of Jeff (dating back to the egcs days) as we are quite close to the
> release and I wanted to be conservative.

BTW, who's going to guarantee that the man-pages as shipped and tagged
are actually built from the corresponding .texi files?  gcc/doc/gcc.1
in the branch, for one, is out-of-date WRT the texi files in the
branch, even though I updated it and installed an updated copy last
time I checked in changes in gcc/doc/invoke.texi.

Unfortunately, `make all' or `make bootstrap' don't update the
man-pages, only `make install' checks whether they're up-to-date (and
potentially rebuilds them).  Since gcc_update touches the generated
man-pages, one has to be very careful (as in rm gcc/doc/*.1 && make
install-man in the release script) to avoid shipping man-pages that
are out-of-date.

Perhaps we should have a Makefile target that rebuilds all man-pages
from scratch?  Along the same lines, should `make all' and `make
bootstrap' also ensure that man-pages are up-to-date, rebuilding them
if needed?

-- 
Alexandre Oliva   Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer                  aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp        oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist    *Please* write to mailing lists, not to me