From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: tmz at pobox.com (Todd Zullinger)
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2018 13:52:14 -0400
Subject: [RFC PATCH] Makefile: work around parallel make issues in docs
In-Reply-To: <20180616171853.GJ1922@john.keeping.me.uk>
References: <20180616053831.26936-1-tmz@pobox.com>
 <20180616122010.GN1922@john.keeping.me.uk>
 <20180616163205.GE11827@zaya.teonanacatl.net>
 <20180616171853.GJ1922@john.keeping.me.uk>
Message-ID: <20180616175213.GG11827@zaya.teonanacatl.net>

Hi,

John Keeping wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 12:32:06PM -0400, Todd Zullinger wrote:
>> We might also want to drop 'doc-pdf' from the default 'doc'
>> target.  The alternative is driving the asciidoc pipeline
>> for the pdf generation too.  That looks a little more
>> involved than doing it for html, but perhaps it's not as bad
>> as I think.
> 
> I think we can definitely drop doc-pdf from the default output.
> 
> I'm half tempted to say we should just delete the PDF output completely
> and see if anyone complains, unless you know of anyone using this?

We don't generate the pdf docs for the Fedora/EPEL cgit
builds and no one has yet filed a bug asking for it.  Poking
around, none of Arch, Debian, Gentoo, and Ubuntu build the
pdf docs (in fact, they don't include the html target
either).

Maybe that's a good sign that the pdf target wouldn't be
missed by many people.

> Otherwise, the dependency on $(DOC_MAN5) seems reasonable
> to me, probably accompanied with a comment explaining the
> clash in a2x's intermediate files.

Cool.  I'll wait a bit and see if anyone chimes in with
support for keeping the pdf target.  If not, dropping it is
the easier option.

Thanks,

-- 
Todd
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I dropped acid on a Saturday night Just to see what the fuss was
about.  Now there goes the neighborhood.