Re: RFC: "make pdf" target for documentation?

[Brooks Moses <bmoses at stanford dot edu>]

Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Oct 2006, Brooks Moses wrote:
> > I would like to propose that a "make pdf" target be added to the GCC general
> > makefile.
>
> I agree.  If you look at the current GNU Coding Standards you'll see a 
> series of targets {,install-}{html,dvi,pdf,ps} and associated directories 
> for installation.
>
> At present, we have html, dvi and install-html support.  Because we're 
> using an autoconf version before 2.60, we have a special configure option 
> --with-htmldir; 2.60 adds the --htmldir option (likewise --pdfdir etc.).  
> Automake directories automatically support building these formats, but not 
> installing them before automake 1.10 which isn't out yet.  So a move to 
> autoconf 2.60/2.61 and automake 1.10 (for gcc and src) will substantially 
> help get these targets supported throughout both repositories.
>
> Apart from the new configure options, which will require all toplevel and 
> all subdirectories to move to autoconf >= 2.60 before they can be used, 
> you can add support bit-by-bit.  For example, you could start by adding 
> the new targets to toplevel (in both gcc and src).  Then you could add 
> dummy targets that do nothing to the subdirectories without documentation, 
> so that the targets can actually be used at toplevel.  Adding proper 
> support for the targets to the "gcc" subdirectory, or any other 
> subdirectory that doesn't use automake, should be essentially independent 
> of changes to other subdirectories.

Thanks!  So, to make sure I'm understanding the implications of this:

1.) As a first step, it sounds like I should concentrate on getting 
"make pdf" to work, without worrying about how the .pdf files get 
installed for now.  (This looks similar to the existing case with .dvi 
files, as there is a "dvi" target but no "install-dvi" target.)

2.) Support for building a "pdf" target can functionally be added 
piecemeal, directory by directory.  Does it make sense for me to try to 
get everything to the point of a patch that builds cleanly (with empty 
"pdf" targets in all the subdirectories, and rebuilding all of the 
Makefile.in files in the directories that do use automake, which is 
going to make for a quite large patch file), or to submit patches as 
pieces that allow the "pdf" target to build correctly up to a point at 
which it gets to the end of the modified subdirectories and breaks?

(FWIW, so far I've got things working in the gcc subdirectory, at least 
for the C, C++, and Fortran languages.)

- Brooks