On Sat, Feb 26, 2022 at 12:07:09AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On 25 Feb 2022 16:06, Karl Berry wrote: > > Adding a note to the manual is fine, but what would be (much) more > > likely to actually get noticed by users is a runtime warning. What is > > the actual behavior when the basename and @setfilename don't match? > > i don't think it's possible to detect from automake, at least at `automake` > time. the point of Patrice's report is that the sources don't exist when > automake runs, so it's not possible to inspect them. trying to go further > (having automake attempt to trace partial makefile? have it generate a > check that runs on the user's system at `make` time?) feels like it's > intruding on the territory of texinfo for no real gain.
I agree, especially if a @setfilename different from the file name is used on purpose to have a different output name than the base name. I just tested a mismatch between filename and @setfilename with automake. The file name is toto.texi and @setfilename my_output.info. make info works. make html fails with: make: *** No rule to make target 'toto.html', needed by 'html-am'. Stop. make my_output.html works. I do not think that this needs to be fixed in case at Texinfo we consider that @setfilename different from the file name is bad and that @setfilename more generally should be deprecated. My recommendation would be to leave unsaid for now whether automake supports or not a different file name than @setfilename for non generated texinfo manuals in case it is later considered relevant, probably based on the advice from the Texinfo crowd. -- Pat