This is the mail archive of the
automake@gnu.org
mailing list for the automake project.
Re: [Fwd: --add-missing]
- To: "Derek R. Price" <derek dot price at openavenue dot com>
- Subject: Re: [Fwd: --add-missing]
- From: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- Date: 23 Dec 2000 13:03:19 -0700
- Cc: automake at gnu dot org, Raja R Harinath <harinath at cs dot umn dot edu>, Alexandre Oliva <oliva at lsd dot ic dot unicamp dot br>
- List-Id: Discussion list for automake <automake.gnu.org><mailto:automake-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <3A11B0CD.D8BC2AF9@openavenue.com> <87lmu7v6sh.fsf@creche.cygnus.com> <3A255F2B.11B71034@openavenue.com> <87k88yhbjp.fsf@creche.redhat.com> <3A3E49AE.5803D222@openavenue.com>
- Reply-To: tromey at redhat dot com
Derek> I slogged my way through enough FAQs, documentation, and email
Derek> archives to lead me to believe that having the same *.texi file
Derek> find two different texinfo.tex files (say ./texinfo.tex &
Derek> ./pdftexinfo.tex) depending on the output isn't a common
Derek> request. I sent out a query to the pdftex mailing list
Derek> however. I'll let you know if they inform me of an available
Derek> workaround.
Ok, now I'm lead to believe that the latest texinfo.tex can handle
both ps and pdf generation. So hackery shouldn't be needed -- I'll
just include the latest texinfo.tex in the next automake release like
I always do.
I wouldn't be averse to adding a `pdf' target so that `make pdf' works
as expected. Someone else would have to write it though since I don't
know how.
Tom