[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Texinfo file generation

From: Stepan Kasal
Subject: Re: Texinfo file generation
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 15:39:02 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.1i


On Fri, Dec 30, 2005 at 04:57:42PM -0500, Bob Rossi wrote:
>   automake (GNU automake) 1.9.6
>[...] which I think is the latest version.
yes, it is.

>   $(srcdir)/ cgdb.texinfo $(srcdir)/version.texi $(cgdb_TEXINFOS)
>   cgdb.dvi: cgdb.texinfo $(srcdir)/version.texi $(cgdb_TEXINFOS)
>   cgdb.pdf: cgdb.texinfo $(srcdir)/version.texi $(cgdb_TEXINFOS)
>   cgdb.html: cgdb.texinfo $(srcdir)/version.texi $(cgdb_TEXINFOS)
>   $(srcdir)/version.texi: @MAINTAINER_MODE_TRUE@ $(srcdir)/stamp-vti

> [...] to build the info file into the source tree, [...]
> Why would I want some of my documentation to go into different places?

The file is distributed (ie. added to the distribution tarball),
for the benefit of people which don't have Texinfo installed.

> Also, I'm kind of assuming that some people have read-only source trees.
> This would most likely break the build on there system.

The source tree contains an *.info file, which is up-to-date, so there
is no need to rebuild.

> I'd prefer to have all the documentation get built into the build tree.
> Does anyone know how to accomplish this with the newer automake?

add this to

> Why was the policy changed?

Actually, the policy wasn't changed, it was only an implementation issue
in Automake. The function handle_texinfo_helper in /usr/bin/automake
contains a long discussion of this, but it might be hard to understand
But *.info files were always distributed.

> or why should I prefer the way it works now?

Because of users which do not have Texinfo installed and want to use
(or install manually) the precompiled *.info files.  But such users are
rare nowadays, so just use the DISTCLEANFILES trick described above.

Have a nice day,
        Stepan Kasal

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]