Re: [GUILT 1/5] Fix generation of Documentation/usage-%.txt.

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 03:33:03PM +0100, Per Cederqvist wrote:

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 3:21 PM, Jeff Sipek [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 02:24:55PM +0100, Per Cederqvist wrote:

quoted

The old rule worked, most of the time, but had several issues:

 - It depended on the corresponding guilt-*.txt file, but the usage.sh
   script actually reads ../guilt-foo.

 - Actually, each usage-%.txt depended on all guilt-*.txt files, so
   make had to do more work than necessary if a single file was
   altered.

 - The construct broke parallel make, which would spawn several
   usage.sh at once.  This leads to unnecessary work, and could
   potentially result in broken usage files if the "echo some_string >
   some_file" construct used by usage.sh isn't atomic.

Fixed by letting the usage.sh script update a single file, and writing
a proper implicit make rule.  This makes parallel make work a lot
better.

Nice!

quoted

There is a small downside, though, as usage.sh will now be run once
for each command (if everything is regenerated).  I think it is worth
to pay that price to get the correctness.  This command is still very
fast compared to the docbook processing.

Given how much simple usage.sh got, I'm thinking it might be worth it to
just remove it, and just shove the rule into the makefile itself.

Ok, I tried to write it.  I came up with the following.  (Note: I have *not*
tested it.)  It's not *that* ugly.

usage-guilt-%.txt: ../guilt-% usage.sh
        echo "'$(basename $<)' `sed -n -e '/^USAGE=/{s/USAGE="//; s/"$//; p; q}' $<`" > $@

What do you think?  Too opaque?  Your change looks good.

Too opaque,

Between that and the other patch in the series that modifies usage.sh, your
patch is good as is.

Signed-off-by: Josef 'Jeff' Sipek <redacted>

and not tested enough. It doesn't work, since make will
handle all $.  You need to write $$ instead of $ in at least one of the
places.  I would stick with usage.sh, as getting the quoting right when
you have make, shell, subshells, and sed all at the same time is just
too painful.

And this is comming from the person that rewrote cmd/shouldfail in a way
that the average shell user will go "whaaa??" :P  (To be fair, I don't know
of a simpler way to make cmd/shouldfail.)

But it is of course up to you. You are the maintainer. :-)

Heh.

Jeff.

-- 
Real Programmers consider "what you see is what you get" to be just as bad a
concept in Text Editors as it is in women. No, the Real Programmer wants a
"you asked for it, you got it" text editor -- complicated, cryptic,
powerful, unforgiving, dangerous.