Quantcast

Building docs for R13B-03 fails

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
14 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate
star

Building docs for R13B-03 fails

Sergei Golovan
Hi!

I'm trying to build Erlang documentation from the sources (the goal is
to switch from prebuilt docs for Debian Erlang packages as building
them from the source is preferable).

To do that I run
make
make TYPE=docs
(in fact, make libs doesn't recognize TYPE, so I had to replace "make
opt" by "make $(TYPE) in the top-level Makefile).

and I've found several problems which make build fail:

1) For some XML files (e.g. erts/docs/src/book.xml) xsltproc reports
runtime errors about undefined variables (partnum in line 871 and 963
of db_pdf.xsl, in lines 1075 and 1173 of db_html.xsl). Is this a bug
in the stylesheets or in xsltproc? (Both 1.1.24 from Debian stable and
1.1.26 from Debian unstable failed.)

2) wx application has duplicated targets html and docs in its makefile.

3) wx application (and others too) require docb_gen script to generate
XML docs sources. It is missing. (I suppose that it is a simple
wrapper around docb_gen Erlang module and could be recreated, but It'd
be better if it were shipped in Erlang sources.)

Is Erlang documentation supposed to be buildable from the source, or
it still requires some unavailable tools?

Cheers!
--
Sergei Golovan

________________________________________________________________
erlang-bugs mailing list. See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
erlang-bugs (at) erlang.org

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate
star

Re: Building docs for R13B-03 fails

Lars Thorsen
Hi Sergei,
we started to build our documentation with open source tools in R13B03 so it
would be possible to build the doc from the delivered sources.

But it's still only built in house because we hadn't time to test it but the plan is
to have it work for everyone in R13B04.

Thanks for your report, we'll have a look at those fault.

Regards Lars


Sergei Golovan wrote:

> Hi!
>
> I'm trying to build Erlang documentation from the sources (the goal is
> to switch from prebuilt docs for Debian Erlang packages as building
> them from the source is preferable).
>
> To do that I run
> make
> make TYPE=docs
> (in fact, make libs doesn't recognize TYPE, so I had to replace "make
> opt" by "make $(TYPE) in the top-level Makefile).
>
> and I've found several problems which make build fail:
>
> 1) For some XML files (e.g. erts/docs/src/book.xml) xsltproc reports
> runtime errors about undefined variables (partnum in line 871 and 963
> of db_pdf.xsl, in lines 1075 and 1173 of db_html.xsl). Is this a bug
> in the stylesheets or in xsltproc? (Both 1.1.24 from Debian stable and
> 1.1.26 from Debian unstable failed.)
>
> 2) wx application has duplicated targets html and docs in its makefile.
>
> 3) wx application (and others too) require docb_gen script to generate
> XML docs sources. It is missing. (I suppose that it is a simple
> wrapper around docb_gen Erlang module and could be recreated, but It'd
> be better if it were shipped in Erlang sources.)
>
> Is Erlang documentation supposed to be buildable from the source, or
> it still requires some unavailable tools?
>
> Cheers!


________________________________________________________________
erlang-bugs mailing list. See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
erlang-bugs (at) erlang.org

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate
star

Re: Building docs for R13B-03 fails

Sergei Golovan
Hi!

I did some further investigations and found that simply calling make
in all doc/src
directories works better then trying to run make recursively.

pwd=`pwd`
for i in `find . -wholename '*/doc/src'` ; do
    (cd $i ; make man ERL_TOP=$pwd )
done

(using Erlang R12B-02-1 edoc and docbuilder, and the attached docb_gen script)
generates manpages perfectly, make html and make pdf though suffer from runtime
errors while running xsltproc.

Running make recursively reveals a whole bunch of problems with
missing and redefined
'docs' targets in makefiles.

On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 12:16 PM,  <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Sergei,
> we started to build our documentation with open source tools in R13B03 so it
> would be possible to build the doc from the delivered sources.
>
> But it's still only built in house because we hadn't time to test it but the plan is
> to have it work for everyone in R13B04.
>
> Thanks for your report, we'll have a look at those fault.
>
> Regards Lars
>
>
> Sergei Golovan wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> I'm trying to build Erlang documentation from the sources (the goal is
>> to switch from prebuilt docs for Debian Erlang packages as building
>> them from the source is preferable).
>>
>> To do that I run
>> make
>> make TYPE=docs
>> (in fact, make libs doesn't recognize TYPE, so I had to replace "make
>> opt" by "make $(TYPE) in the top-level Makefile).
>>
>> and I've found several problems which make build fail:
>>
>> 1) For some XML files (e.g. erts/docs/src/book.xml) xsltproc reports
>> runtime errors about undefined variables (partnum in line 871 and 963
>> of db_pdf.xsl, in lines 1075 and 1173 of db_html.xsl). Is this a bug
>> in the stylesheets or in xsltproc? (Both 1.1.24 from Debian stable and
>> 1.1.26 from Debian unstable failed.)
>>
>> 2) wx application has duplicated targets html and docs in its makefile.
>>
>> 3) wx application (and others too) require docb_gen script to generate
>> XML docs sources. It is missing. (I suppose that it is a simple
>> wrapper around docb_gen Erlang module and could be recreated, but It'd
>> be better if it were shipped in Erlang sources.)
>>
>> Is Erlang documentation supposed to be buildable from the source, or
>> it still requires some unavailable tools?
>>
>> Cheers!
>
>


--
Sergei Golovan


________________________________________________________________
erlang-bugs mailing list. See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
erlang-bugs (at) erlang.org

docb_gen (2K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate
star

OT: Building docs for R13B-03 fails

Bengt Kleberg
Greetings,

It has been well over a year since last time I mentioned this paper
"Recursive Make Considered Harmful",
(http://miller.emu.id.au/pmiller/books/rmch/). so I hope it is ok that I
do it again.

Nice little reading for those that find themselves wondering if they are
the only ones that think make is somewhat lacking, at times.


bengt

On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 13:02 +0300, Sergei Golovan wrote:

> Hi!
>
> I did some further investigations and found that simply calling make
> in all doc/src
> directories works better then trying to run make recursively.
>
> pwd=`pwd`
> for i in `find . -wholename '*/doc/src'` ; do
>     (cd $i ; make man ERL_TOP=$pwd )
> done
>
> (using Erlang R12B-02-1 edoc and docbuilder, and the attached docb_gen script)
> generates manpages perfectly, make html and make pdf though suffer from runtime
> errors while running xsltproc.
>
> Running make recursively reveals a whole bunch of problems with
> missing and redefined
> 'docs' targets in makefiles.
>
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 12:16 PM,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Hi Sergei,
> > we started to build our documentation with open source tools in R13B03 so it
> > would be possible to build the doc from the delivered sources.
> >
> > But it's still only built in house because we hadn't time to test it but the plan is
> > to have it work for everyone in R13B04.
> >
> > Thanks for your report, we'll have a look at those fault.
> >
> > Regards Lars
> >
> >
> > Sergei Golovan wrote:
> >> Hi!
> >>
> >> I'm trying to build Erlang documentation from the sources (the goal is
> >> to switch from prebuilt docs for Debian Erlang packages as building
> >> them from the source is preferable).
> >>
> >> To do that I run
> >> make
> >> make TYPE=docs
> >> (in fact, make libs doesn't recognize TYPE, so I had to replace "make
> >> opt" by "make $(TYPE) in the top-level Makefile).
> >>
> >> and I've found several problems which make build fail:
> >>
> >> 1) For some XML files (e.g. erts/docs/src/book.xml) xsltproc reports
> >> runtime errors about undefined variables (partnum in line 871 and 963
> >> of db_pdf.xsl, in lines 1075 and 1173 of db_html.xsl). Is this a bug
> >> in the stylesheets or in xsltproc? (Both 1.1.24 from Debian stable and
> >> 1.1.26 from Debian unstable failed.)
> >>
> >> 2) wx application has duplicated targets html and docs in its makefile.
> >>
> >> 3) wx application (and others too) require docb_gen script to generate
> >> XML docs sources. It is missing. (I suppose that it is a simple
> >> wrapper around docb_gen Erlang module and could be recreated, but It'd
> >> be better if it were shipped in Erlang sources.)
> >>
> >> Is Erlang documentation supposed to be buildable from the source, or
> >> it still requires some unavailable tools?
> >>
> >> Cheers!
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> erlang-bugs mailing list. See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
> erlang-bugs (at) erlang.org


________________________________________________________________
erlang-bugs mailing list. See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
erlang-bugs (at) erlang.org

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate
star

Re: Recursive Make Considered Harmful

Michael Turner-7

http://miller.emu.id.au/pmiller/books/rmch/

Thanks for this.  I wasn't on the list when you first mentioned this
paper. I vaguely remembered just such a paper while trying to build an
Erlang release a few months ago.  It struck me as a breath of fresh air
when I first read it over a decade ago.

It's not so much that "make" is lacking, I think.  Mainly it's that
the obvious approach (recursion) for building stuff out of a
hierarchical directory structure is not necessarily the best way if
you're using make.

Having one big makefile seems, of course, horribly inelegant.  But when
I've tried that approach, it always reminds me of things I'd forgotten
while using big, lumbering, recursive build systems.  Like, make is
really fast.  Compilers are pretty fast, too.  And having everything in
one place can be nice.

-michael turner

On 12/14/2009, "Bengt Kleberg" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>Greetings,
>
>It has been well over a year since last time I mentioned this paper
>"Recursive Make Considered Harmful",
>(http://miller.emu.id.au/pmiller/books/rmch/). so I hope it is ok that I
>do it again.
>
>Nice little reading for those that find themselves wondering if they are
>the only ones that think make is somewhat lacking, at times.
>
>
>bengt
>
>On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 13:02 +0300, Sergei Golovan wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> I did some further investigations and found that simply calling make
>> in all doc/src
>> directories works better then trying to run make recursively.
>>
>> pwd=`pwd`
>> for i in `find . -wholename '*/doc/src'` ; do
>>     (cd $i ; make man ERL_TOP=$pwd )
>> done
>>
>> (using Erlang R12B-02-1 edoc and docbuilder, and the attached docb_gen script)
>> generates manpages perfectly, make html and make pdf though suffer from runtime
>> errors while running xsltproc.
>>
>> Running make recursively reveals a whole bunch of problems with
>> missing and redefined
>> 'docs' targets in makefiles.
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 12:16 PM,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > Hi Sergei,
>> > we started to build our documentation with open source tools in R13B03 so it
>> > would be possible to build the doc from the delivered sources.
>> >
>> > But it's still only built in house because we hadn't time to test it but the plan is
>> > to have it work for everyone in R13B04.
>> >
>> > Thanks for your report, we'll have a look at those fault.
>> >
>> > Regards Lars
>> >
>> >
>> > Sergei Golovan wrote:
>> >> Hi!
>> >>
>> >> I'm trying to build Erlang documentation from the sources (the goal is
>> >> to switch from prebuilt docs for Debian Erlang packages as building
>> >> them from the source is preferable).
>> >>
>> >> To do that I run
>> >> make
>> >> make TYPE=docs
>> >> (in fact, make libs doesn't recognize TYPE, so I had to replace "make
>> >> opt" by "make $(TYPE) in the top-level Makefile).
>> >>
>> >> and I've found several problems which make build fail:
>> >>
>> >> 1) For some XML files (e.g. erts/docs/src/book.xml) xsltproc reports
>> >> runtime errors about undefined variables (partnum in line 871 and 963
>> >> of db_pdf.xsl, in lines 1075 and 1173 of db_html.xsl). Is this a bug
>> >> in the stylesheets or in xsltproc? (Both 1.1.24 from Debian stable and
>> >> 1.1.26 from Debian unstable failed.)
>> >>
>> >> 2) wx application has duplicated targets html and docs in its makefile.
>> >>
>> >> 3) wx application (and others too) require docb_gen script to generate
>> >> XML docs sources. It is missing. (I suppose that it is a simple
>> >> wrapper around docb_gen Erlang module and could be recreated, but It'd
>> >> be better if it were shipped in Erlang sources.)
>> >>
>> >> Is Erlang documentation supposed to be buildable from the source, or
>> >> it still requires some unavailable tools?
>> >>
>> >> Cheers!
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________________________________
>> erlang-bugs mailing list. See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
>> erlang-bugs (at) erlang.org
>
>
>________________________________________________________________
>erlang-bugs mailing list. See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
>erlang-bugs (at) erlang.org
>
>

________________________________________________________________
erlang-bugs mailing list. See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
erlang-bugs (at) erlang.org

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate
star

Re: Recursive Make Considered Harmful

Bengt Kleberg
The proposed solution, which you aptly name "horribly inelegant", always
suggests to me that make should be replaced. At least for new things.


bengt

 On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 10:47 +0000, Michael Turner wrote:

> http://miller.emu.id.au/pmiller/books/rmch/
>
> Thanks for this.  I wasn't on the list when you first mentioned this
> paper. I vaguely remembered just such a paper while trying to build an
> Erlang release a few months ago.  It struck me as a breath of fresh air
> when I first read it over a decade ago.
>
> It's not so much that "make" is lacking, I think.  Mainly it's that
> the obvious approach (recursion) for building stuff out of a
> hierarchical directory structure is not necessarily the best way if
> you're using make.
>
> Having one big makefile seems, of course, horribly inelegant.  But when
> I've tried that approach, it always reminds me of things I'd forgotten
> while using big, lumbering, recursive build systems.  Like, make is
> really fast.  Compilers are pretty fast, too.  And having everything in
> one place can be nice.
>
> -michael turner
>
> On 12/14/2009, "Bengt Kleberg" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >Greetings,
> >
> >It has been well over a year since last time I mentioned this paper
> >"Recursive Make Considered Harmful",
> >(http://miller.emu.id.au/pmiller/books/rmch/). so I hope it is ok that I
> >do it again.
> >
> >Nice little reading for those that find themselves wondering if they are
> >the only ones that think make is somewhat lacking, at times.
> >
> >
> >bengt
> >
> >On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 13:02 +0300, Sergei Golovan wrote:
> >> Hi!
> >>
> >> I did some further investigations and found that simply calling make
> >> in all doc/src
> >> directories works better then trying to run make recursively.
> >>
> >> pwd=`pwd`
> >> for i in `find . -wholename '*/doc/src'` ; do
> >>     (cd $i ; make man ERL_TOP=$pwd )
> >> done
> >>
> >> (using Erlang R12B-02-1 edoc and docbuilder, and the attached docb_gen script)
> >> generates manpages perfectly, make html and make pdf though suffer from runtime
> >> errors while running xsltproc.
> >>
> >> Running make recursively reveals a whole bunch of problems with
> >> missing and redefined
> >> 'docs' targets in makefiles.
> >>
> >> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 12:16 PM,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> > Hi Sergei,
> >> > we started to build our documentation with open source tools in R13B03 so it
> >> > would be possible to build the doc from the delivered sources.
> >> >
> >> > But it's still only built in house because we hadn't time to test it but the plan is
> >> > to have it work for everyone in R13B04.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks for your report, we'll have a look at those fault.
> >> >
> >> > Regards Lars
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Sergei Golovan wrote:
> >> >> Hi!
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm trying to build Erlang documentation from the sources (the goal is
> >> >> to switch from prebuilt docs for Debian Erlang packages as building
> >> >> them from the source is preferable).
> >> >>
> >> >> To do that I run
> >> >> make
> >> >> make TYPE=docs
> >> >> (in fact, make libs doesn't recognize TYPE, so I had to replace "make
> >> >> opt" by "make $(TYPE) in the top-level Makefile).
> >> >>
> >> >> and I've found several problems which make build fail:
> >> >>
> >> >> 1) For some XML files (e.g. erts/docs/src/book.xml) xsltproc reports
> >> >> runtime errors about undefined variables (partnum in line 871 and 963
> >> >> of db_pdf.xsl, in lines 1075 and 1173 of db_html.xsl). Is this a bug
> >> >> in the stylesheets or in xsltproc? (Both 1.1.24 from Debian stable and
> >> >> 1.1.26 from Debian unstable failed.)
> >> >>
> >> >> 2) wx application has duplicated targets html and docs in its makefile.
> >> >>
> >> >> 3) wx application (and others too) require docb_gen script to generate
> >> >> XML docs sources. It is missing. (I suppose that it is a simple
> >> >> wrapper around docb_gen Erlang module and could be recreated, but It'd
> >> >> be better if it were shipped in Erlang sources.)
> >> >>
> >> >> Is Erlang documentation supposed to be buildable from the source, or
> >> >> it still requires some unavailable tools?
> >> >>
> >> >> Cheers!
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ________________________________________________________________
> >> erlang-bugs mailing list. See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
> >> erlang-bugs (at) erlang.org
> >
> >
> >________________________________________________________________
> >erlang-bugs mailing list. See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
> >erlang-bugs (at) erlang.org
> >
> >


________________________________________________________________
erlang-bugs mailing list. See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
erlang-bugs (at) erlang.org

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate
star

Re: Re: Recursive Make Considered Harmful

Toby Thain
In reply to this post by Michael Turner-7

On 14-Dec-09, at 5:47 AM, Michael Turner wrote:

>
> http://miller.emu.id.au/pmiller/books/rmch/
>
> Thanks for this.  I wasn't on the list when you first mentioned this
> paper. I vaguely remembered just such a paper while trying to build an
> Erlang release a few months ago.  It struck me as a breath of fresh  
> air
> when I first read it over a decade ago.
>
> It's not so much that "make" is lacking, I think.

Right, the problem isn't with 'make' per se, which the paper serves  
to prove.

--Toby

> Mainly it's that
> the obvious approach (recursion) for building stuff out of a
> hierarchical directory structure is not necessarily the best way if
> you're using make.
>
> Having one big makefile seems, of course, horribly inelegant.  But  
> when
> I've tried that approach, it always reminds me of things I'd forgotten
> while using big, lumbering, recursive build systems.  Like, make is
> really fast.  Compilers are pretty fast, too.  And having  
> everything in
> one place can be nice.
>
> -michael turner
>
> On 12/14/2009, "Bengt Kleberg" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> It has been well over a year since last time I mentioned this paper
>> "Recursive Make Considered Harmful",
>> (http://miller.emu.id.au/pmiller/books/rmch/). so I hope it is ok  
>> that I
>> do it again.
>>
>> Nice little reading for those that find themselves wondering if  
>> they are
>> the only ones that think make is somewhat lacking, at times.
>>
>>
>> bengt
>>
>> On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 13:02 +0300, Sergei Golovan wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> I did some further investigations and found that simply calling make
>>> in all doc/src
>>> directories works better then trying to run make recursively.
>>>
>>> pwd=`pwd`
>>> for i in `find . -wholename '*/doc/src'` ; do
>>>     (cd $i ; make man ERL_TOP=$pwd )
>>> done
>>>
>>> (using Erlang R12B-02-1 edoc and docbuilder, and the attached  
>>> docb_gen script)
>>> generates manpages perfectly, make html and make pdf though  
>>> suffer from runtime
>>> errors while running xsltproc.
>>>
>>> Running make recursively reveals a whole bunch of problems with
>>> missing and redefined
>>> 'docs' targets in makefiles.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 12:16 PM,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> Hi Sergei,
>>>> we started to build our documentation with open source tools in  
>>>> R13B03 so it
>>>> would be possible to build the doc from the delivered sources.
>>>>
>>>> But it's still only built in house because we hadn't time to  
>>>> test it but the plan is
>>>> to have it work for everyone in R13B04.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your report, we'll have a look at those fault.
>>>>
>>>> Regards Lars
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sergei Golovan wrote:
>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm trying to build Erlang documentation from the sources (the  
>>>>> goal is
>>>>> to switch from prebuilt docs for Debian Erlang packages as  
>>>>> building
>>>>> them from the source is preferable).
>>>>>
>>>>> To do that I run
>>>>> make
>>>>> make TYPE=docs
>>>>> (in fact, make libs doesn't recognize TYPE, so I had to replace  
>>>>> "make
>>>>> opt" by "make $(TYPE) in the top-level Makefile).
>>>>>
>>>>> and I've found several problems which make build fail:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) For some XML files (e.g. erts/docs/src/book.xml) xsltproc  
>>>>> reports
>>>>> runtime errors about undefined variables (partnum in line 871  
>>>>> and 963
>>>>> of db_pdf.xsl, in lines 1075 and 1173 of db_html.xsl). Is this  
>>>>> a bug
>>>>> in the stylesheets or in xsltproc? (Both 1.1.24 from Debian  
>>>>> stable and
>>>>> 1.1.26 from Debian unstable failed.)
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) wx application has duplicated targets html and docs in its  
>>>>> makefile.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3) wx application (and others too) require docb_gen script to  
>>>>> generate
>>>>> XML docs sources. It is missing. (I suppose that it is a simple
>>>>> wrapper around docb_gen Erlang module and could be recreated,  
>>>>> but It'd
>>>>> be better if it were shipped in Erlang sources.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Is Erlang documentation supposed to be buildable from the  
>>>>> source, or
>>>>> it still requires some unavailable tools?
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________________________________________
>>> erlang-bugs mailing list. See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
>>> erlang-bugs (at) erlang.org
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________________________________
>> erlang-bugs mailing list. See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
>> erlang-bugs (at) erlang.org
>>
>>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> erlang-bugs mailing list. See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
> erlang-bugs (at) erlang.org
>


________________________________________________________________
erlang-bugs mailing list. See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
erlang-bugs (at) erlang.org

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate
star

OT: Re: Recursive Make Considered Harmful

Bengt Kleberg
Greetings,

Perhaps I am  mistaken, but I think the solution presented in the paper,
while being better than recursive make, is cumbersome and fragile. So I
would say that make is lacking, once the project leaves a single
directory.


bengt

On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 13:07 -0500, Toby Thain wrote:

> On 14-Dec-09, at 5:47 AM, Michael Turner wrote:
>
> >
> > http://miller.emu.id.au/pmiller/books/rmch/
> >
> > Thanks for this.  I wasn't on the list when you first mentioned this
> > paper. I vaguely remembered just such a paper while trying to build an
> > Erlang release a few months ago.  It struck me as a breath of fresh  
> > air
> > when I first read it over a decade ago.
> >
> > It's not so much that "make" is lacking, I think.
>
> Right, the problem isn't with 'make' per se, which the paper serves  
> to prove.
>
> --Toby
>
> > Mainly it's that
> > the obvious approach (recursion) for building stuff out of a
> > hierarchical directory structure is not necessarily the best way if
> > you're using make.
> >
> > Having one big makefile seems, of course, horribly inelegant.  But  
> > when
> > I've tried that approach, it always reminds me of things I'd forgotten
> > while using big, lumbering, recursive build systems.  Like, make is
> > really fast.  Compilers are pretty fast, too.  And having  
> > everything in
> > one place can be nice.
> >
> > -michael turner
> >
> > On 12/14/2009, "Bengt Kleberg" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> Greetings,
> >>
> >> It has been well over a year since last time I mentioned this paper
> >> "Recursive Make Considered Harmful",
> >> (http://miller.emu.id.au/pmiller/books/rmch/). so I hope it is ok  
> >> that I
> >> do it again.
> >>
> >> Nice little reading for those that find themselves wondering if  
> >> they are
> >> the only ones that think make is somewhat lacking, at times.
> >>
> >>
> >> bengt
> >>
> >> On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 13:02 +0300, Sergei Golovan wrote:
> >>> Hi!
> >>>
> >>> I did some further investigations and found that simply calling make
> >>> in all doc/src
> >>> directories works better then trying to run make recursively.
> >>>
> >>> pwd=`pwd`
> >>> for i in `find . -wholename '*/doc/src'` ; do
> >>>     (cd $i ; make man ERL_TOP=$pwd )
> >>> done
> >>>
> >>> (using Erlang R12B-02-1 edoc and docbuilder, and the attached  
> >>> docb_gen script)
> >>> generates manpages perfectly, make html and make pdf though  
> >>> suffer from runtime
> >>> errors while running xsltproc.
> >>>
> >>> Running make recursively reveals a whole bunch of problems with
> >>> missing and redefined
> >>> 'docs' targets in makefiles.
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 12:16 PM,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>> Hi Sergei,
> >>>> we started to build our documentation with open source tools in  
> >>>> R13B03 so it
> >>>> would be possible to build the doc from the delivered sources.
> >>>>
> >>>> But it's still only built in house because we hadn't time to  
> >>>> test it but the plan is
> >>>> to have it work for everyone in R13B04.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks for your report, we'll have a look at those fault.
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards Lars
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Sergei Golovan wrote:
> >>>>> Hi!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm trying to build Erlang documentation from the sources (the  
> >>>>> goal is
> >>>>> to switch from prebuilt docs for Debian Erlang packages as  
> >>>>> building
> >>>>> them from the source is preferable).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> To do that I run
> >>>>> make
> >>>>> make TYPE=docs
> >>>>> (in fact, make libs doesn't recognize TYPE, so I had to replace  
> >>>>> "make
> >>>>> opt" by "make $(TYPE) in the top-level Makefile).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> and I've found several problems which make build fail:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1) For some XML files (e.g. erts/docs/src/book.xml) xsltproc  
> >>>>> reports
> >>>>> runtime errors about undefined variables (partnum in line 871  
> >>>>> and 963
> >>>>> of db_pdf.xsl, in lines 1075 and 1173 of db_html.xsl). Is this  
> >>>>> a bug
> >>>>> in the stylesheets or in xsltproc? (Both 1.1.24 from Debian  
> >>>>> stable and
> >>>>> 1.1.26 from Debian unstable failed.)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2) wx application has duplicated targets html and docs in its  
> >>>>> makefile.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 3) wx application (and others too) require docb_gen script to  
> >>>>> generate
> >>>>> XML docs sources. It is missing. (I suppose that it is a simple
> >>>>> wrapper around docb_gen Erlang module and could be recreated,  
> >>>>> but It'd
> >>>>> be better if it were shipped in Erlang sources.)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Is Erlang documentation supposed to be buildable from the  
> >>>>> source, or
> >>>>> it still requires some unavailable tools?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Cheers!
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ________________________________________________________________
> >>> erlang-bugs mailing list. See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
> >>> erlang-bugs (at) erlang.org
> >>
> >>
> >> ________________________________________________________________
> >> erlang-bugs mailing list. See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
> >> erlang-bugs (at) erlang.org
> >>
> >>
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________
> > erlang-bugs mailing list. See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
> > erlang-bugs (at) erlang.org
> >
>


________________________________________________________________
erlang-bugs mailing list. See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
erlang-bugs (at) erlang.org

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate
star

Re: Recursive Make Considered Harmful (OT?)

Michael Turner-7


On 12/15/2009, "Bengt Kleberg" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>Perhaps I am  mistaken, but I think the solution presented in the paper,
>while being better than recursive make, is cumbersome and fragile. So I
>would say that make is lacking, once the project leaves a single
>directory.

What do you mean by "leaves a single directory?"  The only
interpretation I can think of is: "has source files in more than one
directory."  Whatever the demerits of the approach suggested, it's
clearly not limited to single-directory builds.  It's a way to have one
big makefile (composed of some fragments of makefiles in subdirectories)
for something you're building in several directories.

From the beginning of the Implementation Notes:

"The most basic problem to overcome when implementing single-session
make is to avoid flattening your directory structure, while joining the
dependency information present in each subdirectory in a single tree."

So what did you mean by "leaves a single directory"?

-michael turner

>On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 13:07 -0500, Toby Thain wrote:
>> On 14-Dec-09, at 5:47 AM, Michael Turner wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > http://miller.emu.id.au/pmiller/books/rmch/
>> >
>> > Thanks for this.  I wasn't on the list when you first mentioned this
>> > paper. I vaguely remembered just such a paper while trying to build an
>> > Erlang release a few months ago.  It struck me as a breath of fresh
>> > air
>> > when I first read it over a decade ago.
>> >
>> > It's not so much that "make" is lacking, I think.
>>
>> Right, the problem isn't with 'make' per se, which the paper serves
>> to prove.
>>
>> --Toby
>>
>> > Mainly it's that
>> > the obvious approach (recursion) for building stuff out of a
>> > hierarchical directory structure is not necessarily the best way if
>> > you're using make.
>> >
>> > Having one big makefile seems, of course, horribly inelegant.  But
>> > when
>> > I've tried that approach, it always reminds me of things I'd forgotten
>> > while using big, lumbering, recursive build systems.  Like, make is
>> > really fast.  Compilers are pretty fast, too.  And having
>> > everything in
>> > one place can be nice.
>> >
>> > -michael turner
>> >
>> > On 12/14/2009, "Bengt Kleberg" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Greetings,
>> >>
>> >> It has been well over a year since last time I mentioned this paper
>> >> "Recursive Make Considered Harmful",
>> >> (http://miller.emu.id.au/pmiller/books/rmch/). so I hope it is ok
>> >> that I
>> >> do it again.
>> >>
>> >> Nice little reading for those that find themselves wondering if
>> >> they are
>> >> the only ones that think make is somewhat lacking, at times.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> bengt
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 13:02 +0300, Sergei Golovan wrote:
>> >>> Hi!
>> >>>
>> >>> I did some further investigations and found that simply calling make
>> >>> in all doc/src
>> >>> directories works better then trying to run make recursively.
>> >>>
>> >>> pwd=`pwd`
>> >>> for i in `find . -wholename '*/doc/src'` ; do
>> >>>     (cd $i ; make man ERL_TOP=$pwd )
>> >>> done
>> >>>
>> >>> (using Erlang R12B-02-1 edoc and docbuilder, and the attached
>> >>> docb_gen script)
>> >>> generates manpages perfectly, make html and make pdf though
>> >>> suffer from runtime
>> >>> errors while running xsltproc.
>> >>>
>> >>> Running make recursively reveals a whole bunch of problems with
>> >>> missing and redefined
>> >>> 'docs' targets in makefiles.
>> >>>
>> >>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 12:16 PM,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >>>> Hi Sergei,
>> >>>> we started to build our documentation with open source tools in
>> >>>> R13B03 so it
>> >>>> would be possible to build the doc from the delivered sources.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> But it's still only built in house because we hadn't time to
>> >>>> test it but the plan is
>> >>>> to have it work for everyone in R13B04.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Thanks for your report, we'll have a look at those fault.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Regards Lars
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Sergei Golovan wrote:
>> >>>>> Hi!
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I'm trying to build Erlang documentation from the sources (the
>> >>>>> goal is
>> >>>>> to switch from prebuilt docs for Debian Erlang packages as
>> >>>>> building
>> >>>>> them from the source is preferable).
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> To do that I run
>> >>>>> make
>> >>>>> make TYPE=docs
>> >>>>> (in fact, make libs doesn't recognize TYPE, so I had to replace
>> >>>>> "make
>> >>>>> opt" by "make $(TYPE) in the top-level Makefile).
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> and I've found several problems which make build fail:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> 1) For some XML files (e.g. erts/docs/src/book.xml) xsltproc
>> >>>>> reports
>> >>>>> runtime errors about undefined variables (partnum in line 871
>> >>>>> and 963
>> >>>>> of db_pdf.xsl, in lines 1075 and 1173 of db_html.xsl). Is this
>> >>>>> a bug
>> >>>>> in the stylesheets or in xsltproc? (Both 1.1.24 from Debian
>> >>>>> stable and
>> >>>>> 1.1.26 from Debian unstable failed.)
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> 2) wx application has duplicated targets html and docs in its
>> >>>>> makefile.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> 3) wx application (and others too) require docb_gen script to
>> >>>>> generate
>> >>>>> XML docs sources. It is missing. (I suppose that it is a simple
>> >>>>> wrapper around docb_gen Erlang module and could be recreated,
>> >>>>> but It'd
>> >>>>> be better if it were shipped in Erlang sources.)
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Is Erlang documentation supposed to be buildable from the
>> >>>>> source, or
>> >>>>> it still requires some unavailable tools?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Cheers!
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> ________________________________________________________________
>> >>> erlang-bugs mailing list. See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
>> >>> erlang-bugs (at) erlang.org
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ________________________________________________________________
>> >> erlang-bugs mailing list. See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
>> >> erlang-bugs (at) erlang.org
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > ________________________________________________________________
>> > erlang-bugs mailing list. See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
>> > erlang-bugs (at) erlang.org
>> >
>>
>
>
>________________________________________________________________
>erlang-bugs mailing list. See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
>erlang-bugs (at) erlang.org
>
>

________________________________________________________________
erlang-bugs mailing list. See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
erlang-bugs (at) erlang.org

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate
star

OT: Recursive Make Considered Harmful (OT?)

Bengt Kleberg
Greetings,

Perhaps you would consider moving this off the list? I do not think my
meager experience with non-recursive make warrants much more than the
link to the paper.

However, you are spot on. I did mean "has source files in more than one
directory."

You are also correct in stating that the paper describes how to have one
large makefile for several directories.

My comments where intended to convey the following basic statements:
- Recursive make can be viewed as sub-optimal due to the reason put
forth in the paper.
- Non-recursive make I found to be sub-optimal due to it being
cumbersome and fragile.
And my thus conclusion:
- make is lacking, once the project has source files in more than one
directory.


bengt

> On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 10:14 +0000, Michael Turner wrote:
>
> On 12/15/2009, "Bengt Kleberg" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >Perhaps I am  mistaken, but I think the solution presented in the paper,
> >while being better than recursive make, is cumbersome and fragile. So I
> >would say that make is lacking, once the project leaves a single
> >directory.
>
> What do you mean by "leaves a single directory?"  The only
> interpretation I can think of is: "has source files in more than one
> directory."  Whatever the demerits of the approach suggested, it's
> clearly not limited to single-directory builds.  It's a way to have one
> big makefile (composed of some fragments of makefiles in subdirectories)
> for something you're building in several directories.
>
> From the beginning of the Implementation Notes:
>
> "The most basic problem to overcome when implementing single-session
> make is to avoid flattening your directory structure, while joining the
> dependency information present in each subdirectory in a single tree."
>
> So what did you mean by "leaves a single directory"?
>
> -michael turner
>
> >On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 13:07 -0500, Toby Thain wrote:
> >> On 14-Dec-09, at 5:47 AM, Michael Turner wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > http://miller.emu.id.au/pmiller/books/rmch/
> >> >
> >> > Thanks for this.  I wasn't on the list when you first mentioned this
> >> > paper. I vaguely remembered just such a paper while trying to build an
> >> > Erlang release a few months ago.  It struck me as a breath of fresh
> >> > air
> >> > when I first read it over a decade ago.
> >> >
> >> > It's not so much that "make" is lacking, I think.
> >>
> >> Right, the problem isn't with 'make' per se, which the paper serves
> >> to prove.
> >>
> >> --Toby
> >>
> >> > Mainly it's that
> >> > the obvious approach (recursion) for building stuff out of a
> >> > hierarchical directory structure is not necessarily the best way if
> >> > you're using make.
> >> >
> >> > Having one big makefile seems, of course, horribly inelegant.  But
> >> > when
> >> > I've tried that approach, it always reminds me of things I'd forgotten
> >> > while using big, lumbering, recursive build systems.  Like, make is
> >> > really fast.  Compilers are pretty fast, too.  And having
> >> > everything in
> >> > one place can be nice.
> >> >
> >> > -michael turner
> >> >
> >> > On 12/14/2009, "Bengt Kleberg" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Greetings,
> >> >>
> >> >> It has been well over a year since last time I mentioned this paper
> >> >> "Recursive Make Considered Harmful",
> >> >> (http://miller.emu.id.au/pmiller/books/rmch/). so I hope it is ok
> >> >> that I
> >> >> do it again.
> >> >>
> >> >> Nice little reading for those that find themselves wondering if
> >> >> they are
> >> >> the only ones that think make is somewhat lacking, at times.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> bengt
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 13:02 +0300, Sergei Golovan wrote:
> >> >>> Hi!
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I did some further investigations and found that simply calling make
> >> >>> in all doc/src
> >> >>> directories works better then trying to run make recursively.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> pwd=`pwd`
> >> >>> for i in `find . -wholename '*/doc/src'` ; do
> >> >>>     (cd $i ; make man ERL_TOP=$pwd )
> >> >>> done
> >> >>>
> >> >>> (using Erlang R12B-02-1 edoc and docbuilder, and the attached
> >> >>> docb_gen script)
> >> >>> generates manpages perfectly, make html and make pdf though
> >> >>> suffer from runtime
> >> >>> errors while running xsltproc.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Running make recursively reveals a whole bunch of problems with
> >> >>> missing and redefined
> >> >>> 'docs' targets in makefiles.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 12:16 PM,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> >>>> Hi Sergei,
> >> >>>> we started to build our documentation with open source tools in
> >> >>>> R13B03 so it
> >> >>>> would be possible to build the doc from the delivered sources.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> But it's still only built in house because we hadn't time to
> >> >>>> test it but the plan is
> >> >>>> to have it work for everyone in R13B04.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Thanks for your report, we'll have a look at those fault.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Regards Lars
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Sergei Golovan wrote:
> >> >>>>> Hi!
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> I'm trying to build Erlang documentation from the sources (the
> >> >>>>> goal is
> >> >>>>> to switch from prebuilt docs for Debian Erlang packages as
> >> >>>>> building
> >> >>>>> them from the source is preferable).
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> To do that I run
> >> >>>>> make
> >> >>>>> make TYPE=docs
> >> >>>>> (in fact, make libs doesn't recognize TYPE, so I had to replace
> >> >>>>> "make
> >> >>>>> opt" by "make $(TYPE) in the top-level Makefile).
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> and I've found several problems which make build fail:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> 1) For some XML files (e.g. erts/docs/src/book.xml) xsltproc
> >> >>>>> reports
> >> >>>>> runtime errors about undefined variables (partnum in line 871
> >> >>>>> and 963
> >> >>>>> of db_pdf.xsl, in lines 1075 and 1173 of db_html.xsl). Is this
> >> >>>>> a bug
> >> >>>>> in the stylesheets or in xsltproc? (Both 1.1.24 from Debian
> >> >>>>> stable and
> >> >>>>> 1.1.26 from Debian unstable failed.)
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> 2) wx application has duplicated targets html and docs in its
> >> >>>>> makefile.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> 3) wx application (and others too) require docb_gen script to
> >> >>>>> generate
> >> >>>>> XML docs sources. It is missing. (I suppose that it is a simple
> >> >>>>> wrapper around docb_gen Erlang module and could be recreated,
> >> >>>>> but It'd
> >> >>>>> be better if it were shipped in Erlang sources.)
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Is Erlang documentation supposed to be buildable from the
> >> >>>>> source, or
> >> >>>>> it still requires some unavailable tools?
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Cheers!
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> ________________________________________________________________
> >> >>> erlang-bugs mailing list. See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
> >> >>> erlang-bugs (at) erlang.org
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> ________________________________________________________________
> >> >> erlang-bugs mailing list. See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
> >> >> erlang-bugs (at) erlang.org
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > ________________________________________________________________
> >> > erlang-bugs mailing list. See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
> >> > erlang-bugs (at) erlang.org
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >________________________________________________________________
> >erlang-bugs mailing list. See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
> >erlang-bugs (at) erlang.org
> >
> >


________________________________________________________________
erlang-bugs mailing list. See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
erlang-bugs (at) erlang.org

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate
star

Re: OT: Building docs for R13B-03 fails

Anders Nygren-2
In reply to this post by Bengt Kleberg
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 4:19 AM, Bengt Kleberg
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> It has been well over a year since last time I mentioned this paper
> "Recursive Make Considered Harmful",
> (http://miller.emu.id.au/pmiller/books/rmch/). so I hope it is ok that I
> do it again.
>
> Nice little reading for those that find themselves wondering if they are
> the only ones that think make is somewhat lacking, at times.

For anyone interested there is
http://code.google.com/p/erlang-t-build/
Which provides non-recursive make for erlang projects

/Anders

>
>
> bengt
>
> On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 13:02 +0300, Sergei Golovan wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> I did some further investigations and found that simply calling make
>> in all doc/src
>> directories works better then trying to run make recursively.
>>
>> pwd=`pwd`
>> for i in `find . -wholename '*/doc/src'` ; do
>>     (cd $i ; make man ERL_TOP=$pwd )
>> done
>>
>> (using Erlang R12B-02-1 edoc and docbuilder, and the attached docb_gen script)
>> generates manpages perfectly, make html and make pdf though suffer from runtime
>> errors while running xsltproc.
>>
>> Running make recursively reveals a whole bunch of problems with
>> missing and redefined
>> 'docs' targets in makefiles.
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 12:16 PM,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > Hi Sergei,
>> > we started to build our documentation with open source tools in R13B03 so it
>> > would be possible to build the doc from the delivered sources.
>> >
>> > But it's still only built in house because we hadn't time to test it but the plan is
>> > to have it work for everyone in R13B04.
>> >
>> > Thanks for your report, we'll have a look at those fault.
>> >
>> > Regards Lars
>> >
>> >
>> > Sergei Golovan wrote:
>> >> Hi!
>> >>
>> >> I'm trying to build Erlang documentation from the sources (the goal is
>> >> to switch from prebuilt docs for Debian Erlang packages as building
>> >> them from the source is preferable).
>> >>
>> >> To do that I run
>> >> make
>> >> make TYPE=docs
>> >> (in fact, make libs doesn't recognize TYPE, so I had to replace "make
>> >> opt" by "make $(TYPE) in the top-level Makefile).
>> >>
>> >> and I've found several problems which make build fail:
>> >>
>> >> 1) For some XML files (e.g. erts/docs/src/book.xml) xsltproc reports
>> >> runtime errors about undefined variables (partnum in line 871 and 963
>> >> of db_pdf.xsl, in lines 1075 and 1173 of db_html.xsl). Is this a bug
>> >> in the stylesheets or in xsltproc? (Both 1.1.24 from Debian stable and
>> >> 1.1.26 from Debian unstable failed.)
>> >>
>> >> 2) wx application has duplicated targets html and docs in its makefile.
>> >>
>> >> 3) wx application (and others too) require docb_gen script to generate
>> >> XML docs sources. It is missing. (I suppose that it is a simple
>> >> wrapper around docb_gen Erlang module and could be recreated, but It'd
>> >> be better if it were shipped in Erlang sources.)
>> >>
>> >> Is Erlang documentation supposed to be buildable from the source, or
>> >> it still requires some unavailable tools?
>> >>
>> >> Cheers!
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________________________________
>> erlang-bugs mailing list. See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
>> erlang-bugs (at) erlang.org
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> erlang-bugs mailing list. See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
> erlang-bugs (at) erlang.org
>
>

________________________________________________________________
erlang-bugs mailing list. See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
erlang-bugs (at) erlang.org

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate
star

Re: Building docs for R13B-03 fails

Sergei Golovan
In reply to this post by Lars Thorsen
Hi again!

It seems that XSLT stylesheets which were used to generate Erlang
R13B03 manpages are a bit buggy. The main problem is that in the
generated manpages lines often start with dot (.) or apostrophe (').
These characters start groff macros, so some info will be lost after
manpage formatting.

Also, tools like apropos don't understand the APPLICATION or MODULE
sections and try to find the NAME one.

Another minor bug is incorrect authors information formatting.

The attached patch simply makes xsltproc add \& before all dot and
apostrophe symbols, and replaces MODULE by NAME header, and adds some
authors processing.

To check for bugs the following command can be used:
LANG=C MANWIDTH=80 man --warnings -l filename.3 >/dev/null

On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 12:16 PM,  <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Sergei,
> we started to build our documentation with open source tools in R13B03 so it
> would be possible to build the doc from the delivered sources.
>
> But it's still only built in house because we hadn't time to test it but the plan is
> to have it work for everyone in R13B04.
>
> Thanks for your report, we'll have a look at those fault.
>
> Regards Lars
>
>
> Sergei Golovan wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> I'm trying to build Erlang documentation from the sources (the goal is
>> to switch from prebuilt docs for Debian Erlang packages as building
>> them from the source is preferable).
>>
>> To do that I run
>> make
>> make TYPE=docs
>> (in fact, make libs doesn't recognize TYPE, so I had to replace "make
>> opt" by "make $(TYPE) in the top-level Makefile).
>>
>> and I've found several problems which make build fail:
>>
>> 1) For some XML files (e.g. erts/docs/src/book.xml) xsltproc reports
>> runtime errors about undefined variables (partnum in line 871 and 963
>> of db_pdf.xsl, in lines 1075 and 1173 of db_html.xsl). Is this a bug
>> in the stylesheets or in xsltproc? (Both 1.1.24 from Debian stable and
>> 1.1.26 from Debian unstable failed.)
>>
>> 2) wx application has duplicated targets html and docs in its makefile.
>>
>> 3) wx application (and others too) require docb_gen script to generate
>> XML docs sources. It is missing. (I suppose that it is a simple
>> wrapper around docb_gen Erlang module and could be recreated, but It'd
>> be better if it were shipped in Erlang sources.)
>>
>> Is Erlang documentation supposed to be buildable from the source, or
>> it still requires some unavailable tools?
>>
>> Cheers!
>
>


--
Sergei Golovan


________________________________________________________________
erlang-bugs mailing list. See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
erlang-bugs (at) erlang.org

docs.patch (6K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate
star

Re: Building docs for R13B-03 fails

Sergei Golovan
Hi again!

And another issue with Erlang manpages:

Erlang places manpages for its config files into section 4 and
application descriptions into section 6. Though man manual says that
section 4 is for "special files (usually found in /dev)" and section 6
is for "games" (?!).

I'd say that config files manpages are to be in section 5 "file
formats and conventions" and applications - in section 7 (just don't
fit any other section).

Would it be too hard to move manpages across sections (This will
require some minor changes to Erlang mode as well)? Or Erlang users
expect them in sections 4 and 6, so they couldn't find them elsewhere?

On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 11:58 PM, Sergei Golovan <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi again!
>
> It seems that XSLT stylesheets which were used to generate Erlang
> R13B03 manpages are a bit buggy. The main problem is that in the
> generated manpages lines often start with dot (.) or apostrophe (').
> These characters start groff macros, so some info will be lost after
> manpage formatting.
>
> Also, tools like apropos don't understand the APPLICATION or MODULE
> sections and try to find the NAME one.
>
> Another minor bug is incorrect authors information formatting.
>
> The attached patch simply makes xsltproc add \& before all dot and
> apostrophe symbols, and replaces MODULE by NAME header, and adds some
> authors processing.
>
> To check for bugs the following command can be used:
> LANG=C MANWIDTH=80 man --warnings -l filename.3 >/dev/null
>
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 12:16 PM,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hi Sergei,
>> we started to build our documentation with open source tools in R13B03 so it
>> would be possible to build the doc from the delivered sources.
>>
>> But it's still only built in house because we hadn't time to test it but the plan is
>> to have it work for everyone in R13B04.
>>
>> Thanks for your report, we'll have a look at those fault.
>>
>> Regards Lars
>>
>>
>> Sergei Golovan wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> I'm trying to build Erlang documentation from the sources (the goal is
>>> to switch from prebuilt docs for Debian Erlang packages as building
>>> them from the source is preferable).
>>>
>>> To do that I run
>>> make
>>> make TYPE=docs
>>> (in fact, make libs doesn't recognize TYPE, so I had to replace "make
>>> opt" by "make $(TYPE) in the top-level Makefile).
>>>
>>> and I've found several problems which make build fail:
>>>
>>> 1) For some XML files (e.g. erts/docs/src/book.xml) xsltproc reports
>>> runtime errors about undefined variables (partnum in line 871 and 963
>>> of db_pdf.xsl, in lines 1075 and 1173 of db_html.xsl). Is this a bug
>>> in the stylesheets or in xsltproc? (Both 1.1.24 from Debian stable and
>>> 1.1.26 from Debian unstable failed.)
>>>
>>> 2) wx application has duplicated targets html and docs in its makefile.
>>>
>>> 3) wx application (and others too) require docb_gen script to generate
>>> XML docs sources. It is missing. (I suppose that it is a simple
>>> wrapper around docb_gen Erlang module and could be recreated, but It'd
>>> be better if it were shipped in Erlang sources.)
>>>
>>> Is Erlang documentation supposed to be buildable from the source, or
>>> it still requires some unavailable tools?
>>>
>>> Cheers!
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Sergei Golovan
>



--
Sergei Golovan

________________________________________________________________
erlang-bugs mailing list. See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
erlang-bugs (at) erlang.org

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate
star

Re: Building docs for R13B-03 fails

Lars Thorsen

Hi Sergei,
someone in the beginning of OTP history decided to place them there
and I don' remember why. I don't know if Erlang users expect them to be there
but they have at least got used to it :).

I think your suggestion is appropriate and we'll look at it
but I don't know if we change.

Regards Lars
Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB

Sergei Golovan wrote:

> Hi again!
>
> And another issue with Erlang manpages:
>
> Erlang places manpages for its config files into section 4 and
> application descriptions into section 6. Though man manual says that
> section 4 is for "special files (usually found in /dev)" and section 6
> is for "games" (?!).
>
> I'd say that config files manpages are to be in section 5 "file
> formats and conventions" and applications - in section 7 (just don't
> fit any other section).
>
> Would it be too hard to move manpages across sections (This will
> require some minor changes to Erlang mode as well)? Or Erlang users
> expect them in sections 4 and 6, so they couldn't find them elsewhere?
>



________________________________________________________________
erlang-bugs mailing list. See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
erlang-bugs (at) erlang.org

Loading...