Karl Berry wrote: > > Hi folks, > The obvious directory would be $(datadir)/html by analogy with > $(datadir)/info, but it seems a bit arrogant to use such a generic name
Not arrogant so much as conflicting with where folks might want to stash their own stuff. > for something which only relates to Texinfo manuals. Maybe texinfo/html > -- then we could have texinfo/xml/ and texinfo/docbook/ and ..., if we > liked. Thus: > texinfodata = $(datadir)/texinfo > texinfohtml = $(texinfodata)/html The nice part of this solution is it makes obvious the disposition of other kinds of output :) > Also, I'm not sure if make all should make them and make install should > install them by default. I'm inclined to say no, because including the > HTML in the distributions (which would be the implication) seems like a > lot of bloat, and I haven't exactly been flooded with complaints on the > subject. Alexandre suggested separate make [un]install-texinfohtml > targets, which sounds fine to me. > > Reactions? Usually, I don't object to long names. Here, though, I would lean toward dropping 7 letters that don't seem that helpful: "texinfo" and wind up with: make html make install-html make uninstall-html Separating it from make / make install / make uninstall is a good idea. Separating it from "make *clean" et. al. would not be. ================= While I'm writing about texinfo stuff, I have a little feature request: Please do not suppress the emission of the texinfo commands in the absence of a .texi source document. As it happens, .texi sources are not always hand crafted. Sometimes, they are derived or generated in some fashion. It is really hacky to have to create a dummy .texi file in order to confuse the automake code into producing .texi rules. It may be that you cannot do some automated analysis of the .texi files, but you can't do much effective analysis on a two line dummy file anyway. Please alter the code so that it believes me when I tell it I want to be able to produce a .info from a .texi. Thanks! Regards, Bruce
