Richard Dawe wrote: > > The problem, with html, is that nobody agree about what the > > ouput should be. I'd say that if we support html, we should > > use the default makeinfo output (which is to split on nodes), > > and let the user say `AM_MAKEINFOFLAGS = --no-split' when wanted. > > This is what we do for info files already. > > OK. But then it gets hard to know which files to remove. Removing *.html seems > a bit dangerous to me. Perhaps some support script could produce a list of > nodes, so that we know remove the right HTML files. What should it be called? > texinodes?
Perhaps dump all the .texi-derived files into a subdirectory? WRT what program and options to use, you'll need two substitution variables. The texi2html output is just so much better than the makeinfo version that there must be a way to say, "use that." > > Richard> For consistency, if an html_TEXINFOS thing (primary?) > > Richard> is added, it seems that there should be pdf_TEXINFOS, > > Richard> etc. too. > > > > eww... > > 8) Time to rethink the mechanism. :-)
