>>> "Stepan" == Stepan Kasal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Don't forget people using texi2dvi with LaTeX, where there can be many >> more runs. > In theory yes, but I think that in the vast majority of cases two runs > suffice. That's not my experience, that precisely prompted for the changes I implemented. > And I haven't said it should be what you get when you call ``texi2dvi''. > I just said that Automake should call it. Is it usual to use the > Automake-generated rules for compilation of LaTeX documents? I don't know, but I do. I guess it is uncommon because there is not (yet) native support from Automake. > OK, then the optimization would be needed; it'd be easy: > at the end of the build, the xref_files are copied to the main directory. > (We can tar them, if we want to have less files in the main dir.) The point is also to stop populating the directory with tmp files. That's a real annoyance: - visual pollution of the directories - update your CLEAN rules each time a new file appears - ditto with Svn/Cvs etc. - loss of time when completing a file name because of the numerous files with a similar prefix > But since the compilation happens in another dir, you still have most > of the advantages. Sorry, but I don't follow. What's the difference bw what I think you are proposing, and compiling in place? Except the simplification of get_xref_files, which is a bonus, but not an essential goal. And you also just lost the support for "simultaneous" PDF and DVI. _______________________________________________ Texinfo home page: http://www.gnu.org/software/texinfo/ bug-texinfo@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-texinfo
