Patchwork Update to WWW Docs for Contributing Doc Patches [wwwdocs]

login
register
mail settings
Submitter Gerald Pfeifer
Date Jan. 28, 2011, 7:38 p.m.
Message ID <alpine.LNX.2.00.1101282037490.7158@gerinyyl.fvgr>
Download mbox | patch
Permalink /patch/80886/
State New
Headers show

Comments

Gerald Pfeifer - Jan. 28, 2011, 7:38 p.m.
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>> Okay, so I went ahead and committed my proposed patch which is
>> based on Tom's suggestion; included below again for reference.
> FWIW, I don't see the patch, but this was about
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-09/msg02256.html and
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45796
> which has long been fixed since.

Patch included below.

I know we discussed that this is not totally correct, but simpler
than an exact explanation of the necessary environment and steps.
If this can be described in a simpler manner now, definitely, happy
to adjust this.

Gerald
Ralf Wildenhues - Jan. 28, 2011, 7:46 p.m.
* Gerald Pfeifer wrote on Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 08:38:53PM CET:
> +<p>Documentation changes do not require a new bootstrap (a working
> +bootstrap is necessary to get the build environment correct), but you
> +must perform <code>make info</code> and <code>make dvi</code> and correct
>  any errors.

By the way, I've done documentation changes that only broke 'make man'
inside gcc/, but none of the other doumentation targets.  Should I
make a toplevel 'man' target forwarder and add 'make man' as additional
requirement?  The man pages get updated from the 'all' target so that
it is usually covered, but not explicitly stated above.

Thanks,
Ralf
Gerald Pfeifer - Jan. 28, 2011, 8:41 p.m.
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> By the way, I've done documentation changes that only broke 'make man'
> inside gcc/, but none of the other doumentation targets.  Should I
> make a toplevel 'man' target forwarder and add 'make man' as additional
> requirement?  The man pages get updated from the 'all' target so that
> it is usually covered, but not explicitly stated above.

We do have a `make check` target that invokes all testsuites.  Would
it make sense to add something like a `make check-doc` target that 
includes this and the others ones (i.e., make info and make dvi)?

Gerald

Patch

Index: contribute.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/contribute.html,v
retrieving revision 1.77
retrieving revision 1.78
diff -u -r1.77 -r1.78
--- contribute.html	10 Jul 2010 20:22:25 -0000	1.77
+++ contribute.html	28 Jan 2011 17:58:36 -0000	1.78
@@ -148,8 +148,9 @@ 
 
 <h2><a name="docchanges">Documentation Changes</a></h2>
 
-<p>Documentation changes do not require a bootstrap, but you must
-perform <code>make info</code> and <code>make dvi</code> and correct
+<p>Documentation changes do not require a new bootstrap (a working
+bootstrap is necessary to get the build environment correct), but you
+must perform <code>make info</code> and <code>make dvi</code> and correct
 any errors.  You should investigate complaints about overfull or
 underfull hboxes from <code>make dvi</code>, as these can be the only
 indication of serious markup problems, but do not feel obliged to