Re: texi2dvi: A more pleasant way to compile

[Akim Demaille]

>>> "Stepan" == Stepan Kasal <address@hidden> writes:

 >> Don't forget people using texi2dvi with LaTeX, where there can be many
 >> more runs.

 > In theory yes, but I think that in the vast majority of cases two runs
 > suffice.

That's not my experience, that precisely prompted for the changes I
implemented.

 > And I haven't said it should be what you get when you call ``texi2dvi''.
 > I just said that Automake should call it.  Is it usual to use the
 > Automake-generated rules for compilation of LaTeX documents?

I don't know, but I do.  I guess it is uncommon because there is not
(yet) native support from Automake.

 > OK, then the optimization would be needed; it'd be easy:
 > at the end of the build, the xref_files are copied to the main directory.
 > (We can tar them, if we want to have less files in the main dir.)

The point is also to stop populating the directory with tmp files.
That's a real annoyance:

- visual pollution of the directories

- update your CLEAN rules each time a new file appears

- ditto with Svn/Cvs etc.

- loss of time when completing a file name because of the numerous
  files with a similar prefix

 > But since the compilation happens in another dir, you still have most
 > of the advantages.

Sorry, but I don't follow.  What's the difference bw what I think you
are proposing, and compiling in place?  Except the simplification of
get_xref_files, which is a bonus, but not an essential goal.  And you
also just lost the support for "simultaneous" PDF and DVI.