Re: munge-texi replacement

[Rik]

On 04/19/2012 02:31 PM, address@hidden wrote:
> Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 17:27:33 -0400
> From: "John W. Eaton" <address@hidden>
> To: Corbin Champion <address@hidden>
> Cc: octave maintainers mailing list <address@hidden>
> Subject: Generating docs when cross-compiling
> Message-ID: <address@hidden>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> On 19-Apr-2012, Corbin Champion wrote:
>
> | I can cross compile octave, specifying -host=xyz but, now I want to build 
> the
> | docs as well to get help working etc.? When I don't use --disable-docs, but 
> I
> | specify -host=xyz, I fail when it tries to run munge-texi.? The build 
> process
> | needs to NOT cross compile munge-texi and a few other executables.? I can 
> work
> | around this by building octave without cross compiling, saving off these
> | executables and then copying these over when I am cross compiling.? But, I
> | assume there is an easier way.? What is the easier/correct way to do this?? 
> I
> | am guessing the guys that cross compile for mingw have to solve the same 
> thing.
>
> I don't think this problem has been solved yet.
>
> Is munge-texi the only compiled program that we have that is used in
> the build process?  If so, maybe we could replace it with a script.
I already have a Perl replacement for munge-texi if we want to go that
direction.

Advantages:
  -- C++ is not the place for text manipulation
  -- No need for compile rule in every *.txi -> *.texi transform
  -- 1/4 lines of code to maintain, 2X faster
      [maybe even faster used tied hash]

Disadvantages:
  -- Requires Perl on build system

On the other hand, we already require Perl for building anyways so perhaps
this isn't a big issue.
> Are there other compiled programs that are used as part of the build
> process?
>
gendoc in src/ and gethelp in scripts/ are both helper programs compiled
only for the build.

--Rik