> However, I'd probably like to just remove that footprint builder > unless someone else feels very strongly. I think the QFP footprints > in the ~geda library have been checked out more carefully and > thats where I'd rather put the effort in improving the library. > > Comments anyone?
I'm just as happy to leave the TCL stuff in. My installer checks for it, and installs TCL if it is absent. TCL is a good tool, and other EDA packages down the road may want it too. > > 2. PCB's docs need TeX/LaTeX to convert the .texi docs to .pdf and > > .dvi. RH9 doesn't install TeX/LaTeX as part of a vanilla install. > > Again, don't ask me why; I'm just (writing) the installer. > > > > I have fixed this problem by putting checks into PCB's configure.in > > and Makefile.am which look for a tex installation, and then just don't > > build the docs from .texi files if tex is missing. I've tested this > > stuff on my RH9 box and it seems to work. Please find these patches > > below. Feel free to test them and include them into PCB. > > Why is that happening at all? I'm able to build the PCB snapshots > without latex. By that I mean, 'make distcheck' produces a tarball > which includes pre-built documentation so that you don't need latex > when you're building using snapshot sources. Umm, it tries to re-make the .dvi and .pdf stuff from the .texi source on my system when I do "configure && make". Here are two possible explanations: 1. I do a "make clean" before "make", and that wiped out the .dvi and .pdf files. I can check to see what targets are called out for "make clean", and eliminate any removal of .dvi and .pdf if desired. Probably they should only be killed by "make distclean". I will check this. 2. If I open the tarball & "make" the distribution, what timestamp is left on the .dvi and .pdf files, as opposed to the .texi files? Is it possible that the .texi timestamp (date) is newer than the .dvi files? If the timestamps get munged, then "make" will try to rebuild the .dvi and .pdf files. Note that iIt is also possible that I re-opened the tarball after the first install, and *that* screwed up the date stamps. Personally, I think it best -- in terms of build safety -- if ./configure simply checks for TeX/LaTeX and doesn't build anything if TeX/LaTeX are missing. Did you try out the patches? Stuart > > If you're building from CVS, then you will need latex, but I guess > my feeling is that's the price you pay for building from CVS rather > than the snapshot releases. > > -Dan > > -- >
