Hello, On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 12:06:17PM +0100, Noah Slater wrote: > Thank you both for getting back to me. > > >I share Ralf's feelings, but I do not see many options here: > > - you may generate a *.texi stub, as you suggest > > - you may compute foo.texi is from foo.dbk in bthe bootstrap script > > - or you may refrain from using info_TEXINFOS and put the rules to > > Makefile.am > > I will play around with your suggestions to see what fits. I do not > want to generate the texi file from the bootstrap as I want the users > to be able to regenerate the documentation from the original sources -
I agree that the makefile has to contain a rule for foo.texi. What I had in mind was that the same command might be called from the bootstrap script. (But yes, then you have to make sure that the two are synced.) On a second thought: another way to work around the problem: create a small foo.texi with @setfilename and @include foo-main.texi which would be the "real one" generated from foo.dbk. Then you shall also add to Makefile.am: foo_TEXINFOS = foo-main.texi to tell Automake about the dependency of foo.info on this texinfo file. > [...] I also have no > problem distributing the DocBook or texi files as I do not want the > users to HAVE TO HAVE makeinfo or docbook2x-texi installed. In that case I would say that the workaround you suggested is the best one available. > Considering that my situation is not an unreasonable one, would you > consider this a bug? Sorry if it was not clear from my previous mail: Yes, I considered this a bug. Now, when you made me to think more about it, I would be more exact: - it is very unfortunate limitation that Automake cannot handle generated Texinfo sources adequately. - it is a bug that this limitation is not documented in the manual; patches welcome. Have a nice day, Stepan Kasal