Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 14:25:37 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Esa A E Peuha <peuha AT cc DOT helsinki DOT fi>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: DJGPP build process
In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSF.4.20.0008031304010.7298-100000@sirppi.helsinki.fi>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000803141959.12419C-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Esa A E Peuha wrote:

> I tried to compile djgpp docs from the CVS sources on a Unix machine,
> and found it to be very difficult without a cross compiler, because
> the makefiles are not designed so that docs could be built without
> compiling the libraries and executables at the same time.

I'm not sure I understand you: did you want to build the docs alone, 
without the rest?  Because building the library and/or utilities doesn't 
seem to make sense without a cross-compiler.

If you indeed want the docs alone, wouldn't it be easier to have a simple 
shell script or a special makefile target just for that?  All you need 
IIRC is to build mkdoc and have Texinfo installed somewhere, no?

> Would it be a good idea to make the build process more flexible?

Why not?  Assuming you don't violate any of the requirements for the
library build process (no extra tools except Make and Texinfo), that
is. 

> stubify works well enough after applying the following patch (which
> just prevents stubify from reading past the end of its input file).

If you only want the docs, why would you need stubify?