[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-office/magicpoint: ChangeLog magicpoint-1.12a.ebuild

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-office/magicpoint: ChangeLog magicpoint-1.12a.ebuild

[Donnie Berkholz]

On 09:58 Mon 24 Sep     , Christian Faulhammer (opfer) wrote:
> opfer       07/09/24 09:58:29
> 
>   Modified:             ChangeLog
>   Added:                magicpoint-1.12a.ebuild
>   Log:
>   version bump, a lot of bugfixes; on Gentoo side we have better Emacs support; in total fixing bugs 150312, 83313 and 186754
>   (Portage version: 2.1.3.9)

> 	# no parallel make possible!
> 	make -j1 Makefiles || die "emake failed"
> 	make clean || die "emake clean failed"
> 	make BINDIR=/usr/bin LIBDIR=/etc/X11 || die "emake failed"
> 	use emacs && cp contrib/*.el "${S}" && \
> 		elisp-compile *.el || die "elisp-compile failed"
> }
> 
> src_install() {
> 	make \
> 		DESTDIR="${D}" \
> 		BINDIR=/usr/bin \
> 		LIBDIR=/etc/X11 \
> 		install || die "make install"
> 
> 	make \
> 		DESTDIR="${D}" \
> 		DOCHTMLDIR=/usr/share/doc/${PF} \
> 		MANPATH=/usr/share/man \
> 		MANSUFFIX=1 \
> 		install.man || die "emake install.man failed"

Why not emake for all of these?

Thanks,
Donnie
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-office/magicpoint: ChangeLog magicpoint-1.12a.ebuild

[Christian Faulhammer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1061 bytes --]

Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@gentoo.org>:

> On 09:58 Mon 24 Sep     , Christian Faulhammer (opfer) wrote:
> > opfer       07/09/24 09:58:29
> > 
> >   Modified:             ChangeLog
> >   Added:                magicpoint-1.12a.ebuild
> >   Log:
> >   version bump, a lot of bugfixes; on Gentoo side we have better
> > Emacs support; in total fixing bugs 150312, 83313 and 186754
> > (Portage version: 2.1.3.9)
> 
> > 	# no parallel make possible!
> > 	make -j1 Makefiles || die "emake failed"
> > 	make clean || die "emake clean failed"
> > 	make BINDIR=/usr/bin LIBDIR=/etc/X11 || die "emake failed"
[...]
> > 	make \
[...]
> > 	make \
[...]
> Why not emake for all of these?

 Because it fails, magicpoint's build system is really old and weird.
The comment above should state that, but the leftover -j1 I tried would
confuse the reader.  Plus the stupid die comments.

V-Li
 
-- 
Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project
<URL:http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode

<URL:http://www.faulhammer.org/>

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-office/magicpoint: ChangeLog magicpoint-1.12a.ebuild

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1264 bytes --]

On Monday 24 September 2007, Christian Faulhammer wrote:
> Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@gentoo.org>:
> > On 09:58 Mon 24 Sep     , Christian Faulhammer (opfer) wrote:
> > > opfer       07/09/24 09:58:29
> > >
> > >   Modified:             ChangeLog
> > >   Added:                magicpoint-1.12a.ebuild
> > >   Log:
> > >   version bump, a lot of bugfixes; on Gentoo side we have better
> > > Emacs support; in total fixing bugs 150312, 83313 and 186754
> > > (Portage version: 2.1.3.9)
> > >
> > > 	# no parallel make possible!
> > > 	make -j1 Makefiles || die "emake failed"
> > > 	make clean || die "emake clean failed"
> > > 	make BINDIR=/usr/bin LIBDIR=/etc/X11 || die "emake failed"
>
> [...]
>
> > > 	make \
>
> [...]
>
> > > 	make \
>
> [...]
>
> > Why not emake for all of these?
>
>  Because it fails, magicpoint's build system is really old and weird.
> The comment above should state that, but the leftover -j1 I tried would
> confuse the reader.  Plus the stupid die comments.

most people associate "emake" with "run in parallel" when in reality, that is 
merely one of the things it provides

if something doesnt work in parallel, you use `emake -j1` ... using `make` 
generally doesnt make sense anywhere
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-office/magicpoint: ChangeLog magicpoint-1.12a.ebuild

[Christian Faulhammer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 835 bytes --]

Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>:

> >  Because it fails, magicpoint's build system is really old and
> > weird. The comment above should state that, but the leftover -j1 I
> > tried would confuse the reader.  Plus the stupid die comments.
> most people associate "emake" with "run in parallel" when in reality,
> that is merely one of the things it provides
> if something doesnt work in parallel, you use `emake -j1` ... using
> `make` generally doesnt make sense anywhere

 I know the difference, but thanks.  That comment has been added because
I tried it with emake -j1...it still failed, so I chose to use make.
And then forgot to remove the comment.

V-Li

-- 
Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project
<URL:http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode

<URL:http://www.faulhammer.org/>

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-office/magicpoint: ChangeLog magicpoint-1.12a.ebuild

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1004 bytes --]

On Monday 24 September 2007, Christian Faulhammer wrote:
> Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>:
> > >  Because it fails, magicpoint's build system is really old and
> > > weird. The comment above should state that, but the leftover -j1 I
> > > tried would confuse the reader.  Plus the stupid die comments.
> >
> > most people associate "emake" with "run in parallel" when in reality,
> > that is merely one of the things it provides
> > if something doesnt work in parallel, you use `emake -j1` ... using
> > `make` generally doesnt make sense anywhere
>
>  I know the difference, but thanks.  That comment has been added because
> I tried it with emake -j1...it still failed, so I chose to use make.
> And then forgot to remove the comment.

i dont see how (in the normal case) `emake -j1` would fail where `make` does 
not ... they expand to the same effective behavior

`emake -j1` would generally turn into `make -j2 -j1` which has the same 
behavior as the default `make`
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-office/magicpoint: ChangeLog magicpoint-1.12a.ebuild

[Christian Faulhammer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 743 bytes --]

Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>:

> >  I know the difference, but thanks.  That comment has been added
> > because I tried it with emake -j1...it still failed, so I chose to
> > use make. And then forgot to remove the comment.
> i dont see how (in the normal case) `emake -j1` would fail where
> `make` does not ... they expand to the same effective behavior
> `emake -j1` would generally turn into `make -j2 -j1` which has the
> same behavior as the default `make`

 To prove you wrong, I tried it again...commit is on the way.
Whatever happened the first time...

V-Li

-- 
Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project
<URL:http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode

<URL:http://www.faulhammer.org/>

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]