On 03/28/2012 02:29 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Wed, 28 Mar 2012, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > >> - texinfo.tex is not required if a Texinfo source file is specified. The >> assumption is that the file will be supplied, but in a place that >> Automake cannot find. This assumption is an artifact of how Cygnus >> packages are typically bundled. > > texinfo.tex is in a known location, but only a single copy for GDB and > binutils and a single copy for GCC rather than in each directory needing > it. > Which makes perfect sense. So Automake should support this use case.
> Is the approach used (for example) in libquadmath/Makefile.am > > TEXINFO_TEX = ../gcc/doc/include/texinfo.tex > > considered a suitable approach for this case? > This would seem the most sensible approach, yes. Want to give it a try to see whether it works in the GCC/GDB/Binutils tree? (What should be verified particularly carefully is that the idiom works also in VPATH builds). >> - Certain tools will be searched for in the build tree as well as in the >> user's PATH. These tools are runtest, expect, makeinfo and texi2dvi. > > I did previously suggest removing the existing support for building and > using these tools in-tree > <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-03/msg01674.html>, but there was > pushback on that. I don't know, however, if it actually depends on > anything built into automake. > Hmm... Couldn't the issues (if any) be worked around by explicitly re-defining the $(EXPECT), $(RUNTEST), $(MAKEINFO) and $(TEXI2DVI) variables in the relevant Makefiles so that they point to the bundled tools? E.g., EXPECT = $(top_builddir)/../expect/expect and so on. >> - The check target doesn't depend on all. > > I'm not aware of a need for that. > Glad to hear that. Regards, Stefano