On 05/01/2013 03:52 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
Hi Rick.
On 05/01/2013 01:18 AM, Rick Jones wrote:
I have been asked if I was willing to eschew creating the .ps version
of the netperf manual.
Why? What harm do the existence of the "DVI -> PostScript" recipe do to you?
Just avoid generating the PostScript file if you are not interested in it
(I do that all the time ;-). But if somebody else wants to later create such
a PostScript for his own reasons, he still can. The best of both worlds.
Why is a good question. I am the messenger in this case. I'm not sure
that the .ps actually makes successfully for the netperf manual, but I
do not know that to be the reason for the request. I have been told
there has to be some special handling for the .ps in the Debian package
building of netperf. That is all Dark Magic to me though.
Indeed, a "make netperf.ps" fails - there are a boatload of messages
about over and underful hboxes, and the end is:
Transcript written on netperf.log.
/usr/bin/texi2dvi: no such file or directory: netperf.dvi
make: *** [netperf.dvi] Error 1
rick
I gather that automake has automagically included rules for building
netperf.ps from netperf.texi and I am wondering if there is a way to
ask it to not do that?
Not that I know of [1]; and I honestly see no reason to introduce such a
knob, sorry.
[1] Apart from manually overriding some Automake-provided variables
and recipes, like "$(PSS)" and ".dvi.ps" --- but that is a crude
hack rather than a real solution.
Regards,
Stefano
