On 05/01/2013 01:39 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
On 05/01/2013 08:53 PM, Rick Jones wrote:
Anyway, what I have is whatever Ubuntu provides in 12.04:
raj@tardy:~$ automake --version
automake (GNU automake) 1.11.3
raj@tardy:~$ texi2dvi --version
texi2dvi (GNU Texinfo 4.13) 1.135
So this
On 05/01/2013 12:11 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
Rick Jones writes:
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
On 05/01/2013 10:54 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
On 05/01/2013 06:47 PM, Rick Jones wrote:
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.
A
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 avo
I have been asked if I was willing to eschew creating the .ps version of
the netperf manual. 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?
thanks,
rick jones
http
