Ross Boylan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 2. In the doc/tutorial, I got these errors, even on the 2nd run of > pdftex: > Chapter 4 [11] > l.945: Undefined cross reference `Scheme data representation-snt'. > l.945: Undefined cross reference `Scheme data representation-snt'. > l.945: Undefined cross reference `Scheme data representation-pg'. [12] > [13] > [14] [15] [16] Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Chapter 7 (Concept Index) > (./guile-tut.cps) > > (I later changed to doc/tutorial and did make clean pdf. The results > were unchanged.)
This has now been fixed in our CVS (before the 1.8.1 release); thanks for reporting it though. > 3. In doc/goops I got > [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] Chapter 3 [32] [33] [34] [35] Chapter 4 > [36] > (./goops-tutorial.texi [37] > Error: pdfetex (file hierarchy.pdf): cannot find image file > ==> Fatal error occurred, the output PDF file is not finished! Similarly. >> Thanks; we appreciate your report. Given that there is an easy >> workaround, though, how important is this for you? > Given that I now have the 1.8 docs, which are pretty close (?), and that > these are now available in various forms on the web, not so important. > > Still, it would be nice if it worked. I suspect the problems I'm seeing > now are separate issues from the original one. > > If regular make needs to be run first, perhaps the default target (or > something appropriate) should be in the prerequisites of the doc > targets. Ideally yes, but I don't think there's an easy way to do this. It's an example of the problems that Peter Miller's essay "Recursive Make Considered Harmful" (http://www.pcug.org.au/~millerp/rmch/recu-make-cons-harm.html). > There are a few reasons it would be good to make this work: > * the 1.6 docs are not readily available, and if you're working with 1.6 > (as I guess I and other Debian users are) it's good to have the exact > documenation. > * If possible, it would be good to be able to build the documentation > without having everything on hand that is needed to build the full > package. Since I appear to have succeeded with the vanilla make, that > may already be the case. But I have a lot of development tools on my > machine already. > * If this is supposed to just work, maybe it indicates an automake > problem that would be good to report. I think we should review whether it's a good idea to have parts of the manual auto-generated during make. My feeling is that this could better be a developer-side activity inside, like autogen.sh. Then the .texis as shipped would be ready for feeding to texinfo etc. >> > I'm a bit surprised you don't have people enter bugs in the bug tracker; >> > the BUGS file said to send an email like this. >> >> I agree that it is unusual not to use a tracker these days, but >> [email protected] is still for now our primary mechanism for reporting >> and dealing with bug reports. I should have added here that it does also work to use the savannah tracker; an email to [email protected] is generated automatically. > You might add to the instructions that fact that you need to subscribe > to the list in order to post there smoothly; I found out the hard way. Thanks; I've updated lots of places now to say this. Regards, Neil _______________________________________________ Bug-guile mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile
