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.
