[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Problem with building .info files?

From: Daniel Franke
Subject: Re: Problem with building .info files?
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 11:38:04 +0100
User-agent: KMail/1.9.5

On Sunday 19 November 2006 07:58, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > Any other suggestions to work around this, than (re-)writing the Makefile
> > rules myself?
> Yes.  Describe the bug you're seeing.  Why does the info file get
> rebuilt if you start from an up to date tarball in a read-only location?
> (If that's the bug you're seeing, that is.)


no, not as such. I am about to add some .texi documentation to gcc/libgomp. 
The Installing manual of gcc [1] states: "First, we highly recommend that GCC 
be built into a separate directory than the sources which does not reside 
within the source tree.". 

After bootstrapping languages C and Fortran from SVN, one finds the 
following .info files:


None of them is placed in any $(srcdir). Using the snippet from my 
last post, I end up with:

Which is not not go well with the others. OTOH, .pdf, .dvi and html are placed 
in $(builddir) which makes .info more equal than the those. This gave the 
impression of "a bug". But as Brian Dessent points out:

On Sunday 19 November 2006 03:05, Brian Dessent wrote:
> It's consistent with the fact that the GNU coding standards say that the
> generated .info files should be included in the "dist" tarballs so that
> they can be installed and viewed on end-user systems without
> texinfo/makeinfo installed.

The targets quoted above do not employ automake but maintain the 
directly and hence rely on handwritten rules for info, dvi, þdf and html 
targets. To be consistent with gcc, but inconsistent with GNU coding 
standards, it seems that I have to do the same?!

Ahh, story of my life.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]