On 4 March 2011 17:14, Ralf Wildenhues <ralf.wildenh...@gmx.de> wrote: > * Reuben Thomas wrote on Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 04:42:33PM CET: >> >> Thoughts? > > We could just provide thin-layer support for both latexmk and/or rubber.
This sounds good, and John Collins has pointed out that latexmk does provide dependency information (not quite what we want yet, but he's willing to help fix it), and supplied some useful comparison with Rubber, suggesting that latexmk is better at ferreting out dependencies. > That would probably be the least amount of work, both inside Automake, > and for getting any missing bits into the upstream projects. Agreed. It seems that we're up to deciding what shape the automake interface should take, given that we expect a tool that supports, in the abstract: $(LATEX_MAKER) [--deps|--make|--clean] root.tex -- http://rrt.sc3d.org
