Re: info_TEXINFOS should not assume source file exists

[Stepan Kasal]

Hello,

On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 12:06:17PM +0100, Noah Slater wrote:
> Thank you both for getting back to me.
> 
> >I share Ralf's feelings, but I do not see many options here:
> > - you may generate a *.texi stub, as you suggest
> > - you may compute foo.texi is from foo.dbk in bthe bootstrap script
> > - or you may refrain from using info_TEXINFOS and put the rules to
> >   Makefile.am
> 
> I will play around with your suggestions to see what fits. I do not
> want to generate the texi file from the bootstrap as I want the users
> to be able to regenerate the documentation from the original sources -

I agree that the makefile has to contain a rule for foo.texi.
What I had in mind was that the same command might be called from the
bootstrap script.  (But yes, then you have to make sure that the two
are synced.)

On a second thought: another way to work around the problem:
create a small foo.texi with @setfilename and
  @include foo-main.texi
which would be the "real one" generated from foo.dbk.

Then you shall also add to Makefile.am:
        foo_TEXINFOS = foo-main.texi
to tell Automake about the dependency of foo.info on this texinfo
file.

> [...] I also have no
> problem distributing the DocBook or texi files as I do not want the
> users to HAVE TO HAVE makeinfo or docbook2x-texi installed.

In that case I would say that the workaround you suggested is the
best one available.

> Considering that my situation is not an unreasonable one, would you
> consider this a bug?

Sorry if it was not clear from my previous mail:
Yes, I considered this a bug.

Now, when you made me to think more about it, I would be more exact:
 - it is very unfortunate limitation that Automake cannot handle
   generated Texinfo sources adequately.
 - it is a bug that this limitation is not documented in the manual;
   patches welcome.

Have a nice day,
        Stepan Kasal