[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: What is the correct way of handling generated docs?
From: |
Bruce Korb |
Subject: |
Re: What is the correct way of handling generated docs? |
Date: |
Sun, 30 Dec 2001 00:42:21 -0800 |
Bruce Korb wrote:
> > What do you think about this unanswered bug report:
> > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/bug-automake/2001/msg00423.html
> > (personally I'd vote for solution 5)
> Personally, I think it came two or three years after I initially
> raised the issue, but now I'll go have a look.
> [...time passes...]
> [...too much time passed. PacBell has stopped their DNS services again...]
[[I used a private line to my office to resolve sources.redhat
and then read the message using the IP address :-}}
Personally, I would like to strongly encourage solution 5.
It is what I recommended years ago and I find myself still
stubbing my toe. The difference now is that Java doc and
Doxygen exist so I am no longer alone in the wilderness.
> 5 Put the info filename in Makefile.am.
>
> This could be explicit or implicit, ie use same
> basename. Texinfo files will not be scanned.
Again, this is the "macro" solution:
mumble_INFOS = mumble.info
or else assume:
info_TEXINFOS = mumble.texi
implies:
mumble.info : mumble.texi
=========================
Please notice, though, that I still have a problem after
this solution. The author of the problem generates the
.texi from maintainer-clean source. That does not get
regenerated _except_ from maintainer-clean source. My
hope is to not have it be necessary to distribute extracted
doc source since I distribute the tool to extract it.