Re: What is the correct way of handling generated docs?

[Bruce Korb <bkorb at pacbell dot net>]

Bruce Korb wrote:

> > What do you think about this unanswered bug report:
> > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/bug-automake/2001/msg00423.html
> > (personally I'd vote for solution 5)
> Personally, I think it came two or three years after I initially
> raised the issue, but now I'll go have a look.
> [...time passes...]
> [...too much time passed.  PacBell has stopped their DNS services again...]

[[I used a private line to my office to resolve sources.redhat
and then read the message using the IP address  :-}}

Personally, I would like to strongly encourage solution 5.
It is what I recommended years ago and I find myself still
stubbing my toe.  The difference now is that Java doc and
Doxygen exist so I am no longer alone in the wilderness.

> 5  Put the info filename in Makefile.am.
> 
>    This could be explicit or implicit, ie use same
>    basename. Texinfo files will not be scanned.

Again, this is the "macro" solution:

  mumble_INFOS = mumble.info

or else assume:

  info_TEXINFOS = mumble.texi

implies:

  mumble.info : mumble.texi

=========================

Please notice, though, that I still have a problem after
this solution.  The author of the problem generates the
.texi from maintainer-clean source.  That does not get
regenerated _except_ from maintainer-clean source.  My
hope is to not have it be necessary to distribute extracted
doc source since I distribute the tool to extract it.