Re: retrograding with convert-ly

[David Kastrup]

-Eluze <address@hidden> writes:

> dak-3 wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> I don't think there is a bug here.
>> 
>> Well, you reproduce the described behavior.  No idea whether to call it
>> a bug.
>> 
>
> I don't think we should - most important is that the conversions happen!
>
> the best we could do is to recommend to use the options -de - is it worth
> it?

-e is orthogonal to the purported problem: it just means putting the
output in the file again instead of on stdout.  Which is usually what
you want.

-d means no update in version header unless changes happen.  That is
also usually what you would want.  Without -d, the version of the last
applicable rule is used instead (rather than the last rule actually
causing a change).

In the case that no rule would be applied because the file is already
newer than all rules, I think it would make sense _not_ to change the
version header even without -d.

-- 
David Kastrup