Re: Is there a way to tell automake to not include rules for building .ps files from a .texi?

[Rick Jones]

On 05/01/2013 03:52 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> Hi Rick.
>
> On 05/01/2013 01:18 AM, Rick Jones wrote:
> > I have been asked if I was willing to eschew creating the .ps version
> > of the netperf manual.
> Why?  What harm do the existence of the "DVI -> PostScript" recipe do to you?
> Just avoid generating the PostScript file if you are not interested in it
> (I do that all the time ;-).  But if somebody else wants to later create such
> a PostScript for his own reasons, he still can.  The best of both worlds.

Why is a good question.  I am the messenger in this case.  I'm not sure 
that the .ps actually makes successfully for the netperf manual, but I 
do not know that to be the reason for the request.  I have been told 
there has to be some special handling for the .ps in the Debian package 
building of netperf.  That is all Dark Magic to me though.

Indeed, a "make netperf.ps" fails - there are a boatload of messages 
about over and underful hboxes, and the end is:

Transcript written on netperf.log.
/usr/bin/texi2dvi: no such file or directory: netperf.dvi
make: *** [netperf.dvi] Error 1

rick

> > I gather that automake has automagically included rules for building
> > netperf.ps from netperf.texi and I am wondering if there is a way to
> > ask it to not do that?
> Not that I know of [1]; and I honestly see no reason to introduce such a
> knob, sorry.
>
>    [1] Apart from manually overriding some Automake-provided variables
>        and recipes, like "$(PSS)" and ".dvi.ps" --- but that is a crude
>        hack rather than a real solution.
>
> Regards,
>    Stefano