Il 03/01/2013 21:53, Stefano Lattarini ha scritto: > Severity: wishlist > > [This is posted also to the automake and texinfo lists to ensure > a wider audience. Discussion should continue exclusively on the > bug-automake list, to avoid a cross-posting flood] > > Automake-generated have for a long time supported "split" info files: > <http://www.gnu.org/software/texinfo/manual/texinfo/texinfo.html#Tag-and-Split-Files> > > When I asked the rationale for this feature: > > <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/texinfo-devel/2012-08/msg00015.html> > > Karl Berry confirmed that the reason for its existence was indeed > "efficiency, especially memory size": > > <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/texinfo-devel/2012-08/msg00024.html> > > He also added that "The Elisp manual is one of the largest ones around. > Looks like it would be maybe 3.5mb as one file." Not in any way big by > modern standards. > > OTOH, it appears that the use of split info files (at least in the way > Automake-generated rules have been handling them for a long time) can > cause real problems in some (admittedly quite corner-case) situations: > > <http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.parsers.bison.bugs/3963> > <http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=12320> > > So I believe we could follow suit with Automake-NG (see commit dd603e21, > <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake-ng/2012-08/msg00147.html>) > and have Automake-generated makefiles pass the '--no-split' option > unconditionally to makeinfo invocations (starting from Automake 1.14). > This would allow some nice simplifications in our Texinfo recipe > (exemplified by the Automake-NG patch referenced above), and offer an > automatic fix for bug#12320. > > Another *very* good aspect of such a change is that it would be 100% > transparent to the Automake users. > > Thoughts, opinions, objections?
*This* is a change I support. Paolo