Karl Berry , Fri Jul 14 2023 23:32:21 GMT+0200
(Central European Summer Time)
I could distribute just the .texi.in file and still get
autoreconf/automake/packaging to work. Right now, I get an error
about a missing .texi file
I thought Mike's fix (-e ... /dev/null) should already
I could distribute just the .texi.in file and still get
autoreconf/automake/packaging to work. Right now, I get an error
about a missing .texi file
I thought Mike's fix (-e ... /dev/null) should already have fixed that?
Well, in any case, it's not bad to check for the .texi.in, so
I meant to include the patch I actually applied.
commit 5c85a9d31830a61facc298fa7d7d82f5651f1a6c
Author: Bogdan
AuthorDate: Thu Jul 13 15:32:34 2023 -0700
texi: assume .texi.in generates .texi.
This change refines the fix for https://bugs.gnu.org/54063.
* bin/automake.in
Karl Berry , Fri Jul 14 2023 00:34:39 GMT+0200
(Central European Summer Time)
Bogdan, Pat, Gavin, all - back on this bug:
https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=54063
Subject: bug#54063: - special case] Try .texi.in when .texi missing
Bogdan - the basic idea of your patch
On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 04:34:39PM -0600, Karl Berry wrote:
> Bogdan, Pat, Gavin, all - back on this bug:
>
> https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=54063
> Subject: bug#54063: - special case] Try .texi.in when .texi missing
>
> As previously discussed in this bug, I added a
Bogdan, Pat, Gavin, all - back on this bug:
https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=54063
Subject: bug#54063: - special case] Try .texi.in when .texi missing
Bogdan - the basic idea of your patch seemed fine, to use .texi.in when
.texi is missing.
After investigating the behavior
On Sat, Feb 26, 2022 at 12:07:09AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On 25 Feb 2022 16:06, Karl Berry wrote:
> > Adding a note to the manual is fine, but what would be (much) more
> > likely to actually get noticed by users is a runtime warning. What is
> > the actual behavior when the basename and
On 25 Feb 2022 16:06, Karl Berry wrote:
> Adding a note to the manual is fine, but what would be (much) more
> likely to actually get noticed by users is a runtime warning. What is
> the actual behavior when the basename and @setfilename don't match?
i don't think it's possible to detect from
On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 04:29:11PM -0700, Karl Berry wrote:
> Runtime warning in texi2any or automake?
>
> Both?
It seemed to me that @setfilename in texi2any was actually a way to
have an output file name different from the input file name. If this is
not really useful, we should simply
Runtime warning in texi2any or automake?
Both?
On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 04:06:34PM -0700, Karl Berry wrote:
> Adding a note to the manual is fine, but what would be (much) more
> likely to actually get noticed by users is a runtime warning. What is
> the actual behavior when the basename and @setfilename don't match?
> Sorry to be clueless ...
Adding a note to the manual is fine, but what would be (much) more
likely to actually get noticed by users is a runtime warning. What is
the actual behavior when the basename and @setfilename don't match?
Sorry to be clueless ...
On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 10:32:20PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > The only issue I see is if after the
> > file is generated the @setfilename is not the same as the file base name
> > there will be errors. I do not think that automake should support that
> > setup, but maybe it would be good to
On 24 Feb 2022 11:19, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 01:52:21AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On 19 Feb 2022 15:03, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > > In Texinfo, we have a texinfo manual which is automatically generated
> > > from Pod sections from Texinfo perl modules. When this
On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 01:52:21AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On 19 Feb 2022 15:03, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > In Texinfo, we have a texinfo manual which is automatically generated
> > from Pod sections from Texinfo perl modules. When this generated manual
> > is removed, automake cannot run
On 19 Feb 2022 15:03, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> In Texinfo, we have a texinfo manual which is automatically generated
> from Pod sections from Texinfo perl modules. When this generated manual
> is removed, automake cannot run anymore. To workaround this issue, we
> have a generation of a fake
Hello,
Please CC me, I am not subscribed.
In Texinfo, we have a texinfo manual which is automatically generated
from Pod sections from Texinfo perl modules. When this generated manual
is removed, automake cannot run anymore. To workaround this issue, we
have a generation of a fake manual that
17 matches
Mail list logo
