Re: [bug #43122] texi2dvi does not compile enough times to get toc

[Gavin Smith]

> So from the above, I think that with MikTeX, yes it is working, but this
> is not because of your patch, but thanks to some MikTeX trick which I
> don't know. This is why I am saying that your patch is not working, I am
> meaning that it is not working *PER SE*.

I see. Could you try it with an @include of another file along with
--tidy? MikTeX finds files in the build directory, probably because
texi2dvi has changed to that directory, so it might not be able to
find files in the original directory, if it's not using TEXINPUTS.

Something I read said that MikTeX uses semicolons as a path separator
sometimes, but you have colons in your log. Could you try changing
path_sep to ; to see if that makes a difference?

Do you know where there is official documentation of where MikTeX
looks for input files?

>
> Tell me where I am wrong...
>
>
> There is another issue, dummy.texi is not run_tex'ed with the
> catcode_special for ~, this is because the make_openout_test has caused
> catcode_special to go to false.
>
> On the other hand when openout.tex is run_tex'ed, there is some special
> catcode for ~, which is useless.

I thought it was simpler just to leave the catcode for ~ alone, as ~
isn't used in the test.

> ======================================================================
>   save_catcode_special=$catcode_special
>   catcode_special=false
>   make_tex_cmd
>   catcode_special=$save_catcode_special
> ======================================================================

That looks good to me.

> Anyway, I still prefer that we should solve it in texinfo.tex, because
> that would allow using easily latexmk instead of texi2dvi to do the
> job. I like texi2dvi, but I think that it makes texinfo more valuable to
> people if we offer some diversity in tools.

What does latexmk do, and how would changing texinfo.tex help it to be used?