Re: Texinfo Failure was: stable release: 1.5.2 fails to build|
Chuck Mead <csm,AT,MoonGroup,DOT,com>|
Fri, 22 Feb 2002 01:19:44 +0100|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Well I don't really have a preference so long as you remove it from the
make file if you're not going to include the required file... :-).
On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Olaf Titz posted the following:
OT>> I'm not quite sure of the advantage of breaking out a 75K texinfo file,
OT>> but perhaps the author has something in mind for the next release.
OT>This was one of those decisions which are not that easy, as either way
OT>you do something wrong. The most correct way of dealing with this is
OT>to just include the .texinfo file in the package. However, this
OT>includes another dependency in the toolchain - everyone who builds the
OT>package has to have makeinfo installed just for the docs. And this is
OT>not something which could be regarded as optional, IMHO.
OT>On the other hand, redundantly including any auto-generated file along
OT>with its source (i.e. including the .texinfo and the .info) in the
OT>package is something I try to avoid whenever possible, for aesthetical
OT>and efficiency reasons.  (What I really hate is when people
OT>either include the .dvi _and_ .ps _and_ .pdf versions along with .info
OT>and .texinfo, or write Makefiles which force generating all those
OT>versions when you just want to compile the program, and perhaps even
OT>fail on the print formats when the proper tool is missing.)
OT> One exception I've already made in another project is gperf
OT>output. This is a tool which is by all measures too exotic to require.
Fine day for friends. So-so day for you.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----