> Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 16:13:16 -0600 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl Berry) > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [email protected] > > Can you please describe the situation where texi2dvi is run on a > directory tree like the comment above suggests? I didn't think this > could happen. > > I believe a LaTeX document might be set up that way. However, perhaps > cp -pr would be simpler.
It would, if -p and -r are widely supported. Are they? > The problem with this replacement is that on non-Posix platforms it > requires yet another ported utility (Tar) > > Which is everywhere, right? I find it quite hard to imagine a system, > even MS-DOS, which has sufficient support to run texi2dvi (e.g., has > tex), but lacks tar. The issue is not whether there is a port of Tar, but whether it is installed on the end-user's machine. > and a very reliable support in the shell for Posix-style > (command...) semantics. > > It's a pretty basic shell construct. That requires a faithful emulation of `fork'. > Either the shell is implemented or not. If it's not, I doubt > texi2dvi will run at all. Heck, it makes use of tons of > user-defined functions now, which are a lot more obscure feature > than | and &&. It strikes me that we should reimplement texi2dvi as a C program. Beyond certain level of complexity (which IMHO texi2dvi passed way back), there's no reasons to continue to stick to a shell script. _______________________________________________ Texinfo home page: http://www.gnu.org/software/texinfo/ [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-texinfo
