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

[Stefano Lattarini]

On 05/01/2013 06:47 PM, Rick Jones wrote:
> 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.
>
Ah, OK.  We don't shoot the messenger ;-)

> 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.
> 
Sounds the same to me as well.

> 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
>
Stop, this is saying that the building of the *DVI* itself has failed.
(Then of course one won't be able to build the PostScript: that is
generated from the DVI...).  My guess is that this isn't an automake
issue, but a texi2dvi one --- I don't know whether due to a bug in
texi2dvi or in the netperf's texinfo files.

And there is another thing to consider: Automake 1.13 has removed support
for any makeinfo/texi2dvi older than 4.9.  If you are using a Makefile
generated by Automake 1.13.x with a texi2dvi < 4.9, you might be out of
luck.

HTH,
  Stefano