On 8 September 2015 at 22:44, Vincent Belaïche <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Anyway, I still prefer that we should solve it in texinfo.tex, >>> because that would allow using easily latexmk instead of texi2dvi to >>> do the job. I like texi2dvi, but I think that it makes texinfo more >>> valuable to people if we offer some diversity in tools. >> >> What does latexmk do, and how would changing texinfo.tex help it to be >> used? > > latexmk finds the produced aux file thanks to the recorder. It then > makes some md5sum (or something like that) to get a signature of each of > these files. If the aux files are created or refereshed (signature > changed) then it makes compilation again. Well, it is more complex than > that, e.g. non conventional recorder file names, like latex.fls or > pdflatex.fls are supported.
The simplest solution would be just not to use an "fl" index when using latexmk. I don't like the idea of using an _0 extension instead of fl, it just seems ugly and overcomplicated to me. If it's a real problem (i.e. it causes inconvenience for someone using latemk with a Texinfo file) we can always look at the renaming option. Thanks for the rest, I'll have a look at it later.
