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

[Gavin Smith]

> Since the nearly beginning of this whole tale of woe, I am thinking that
> it would be better to solve the .fls case in texinfo.tex also rather
> than just texi2dvi, my first idea was some fl<->_0 translation, and my
> final idea is that non sorted index I should be named .I.idx, and sorted
> index I should be named .I.ind.
>
> - This would follow the rule that filename extensions are used with
>   parcimony and give some indication on the file format, and
>
> - This would make Texinfo closer to LaTeX to that respect.
>
> - This would not break the support of other languages (e.g. latex) in
>   addition to Texinfo --- well I don't know if this support really is
>   used by anybody, but if not it just makes the code more complex.
>
> Then tex2dvi would just deal the compatibility/tool interoperability
> issues:

I don't think we should change the file extensions any more than in
necessary (.fl and .fls possibly). Users are familiar with them and
files with unusual names appearing would be distracting. Also they
know what files to delete in order to delete the index files.

> The above would be the ideal (meaning less risky, more futureproof) fix
> in my opinion, but I can understand that there is so much tool
> interoperability issues that one is hesitant to go this way.

Yes, interoperability is a big problem. texinfo.tex, texindex,
texi2dvi. If you say each version is new or old, you have 8
possibilities, and you have 6 ways of ordering them in order of age.

If it's possible to make the parts interoperate automatically then
that would be better than telling people to upgrade.