[darcs-users] darcs patch: Resolve issue1271: only make darcs_print.pdf (never da...

Trent W. Buck trentbuck at gmail.com
Sat Jan 3 01:58:34 UTC 2009


On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 04:17:05PM +0000, Eric Kow wrote:
> Trent, Petr,
> 
> On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 23:13:41 -0800, Trent W. Buck wrote:
> > Thu Jan  1 17:37:37 EST 2009  Trent W. Buck <trentbuck at gmail.com>
> >   * Resolve issue1271: only make darcs_print.pdf (never darcs.pdf).
> 
> > - -doc/manual/darcs.ps: doc/manual/darcs_print.ps
> > - -	cp $< $@
> > - -doc/manual/darcs.pdf: doc/manual/darcs_print.pdf
> > - -	cp $< $@
> 
> I realise that the redundancy is irritating, but I vote that we
> leave well enough alone (especially for the release).

It results in an increase in the install size by five percent; around
half a megabyte.  That isn't as significant as I thought (presumably
/usr/bin/darcs is huge because GHC does static linking).

> My concern is that people are expecting the manual to be
> darcs.{ps,pdf} and not darcs_print.{ps,pdf}.

I agree, but the other "quick fixes" I could think of had (IMO) worse
disadvantages: either creating and installing darcs.pdf as a symlink
to darcs_print.pdf

    doc/manual/darcs.pdf doc/manual/darcs.ps: \
    doc/manual/darcs.%: darc/manual/darcs_print.%
    	ln -sf $< $@

or mv'ing it, which would cause the PDF to be rebuilt every time.

    doc/manual/darcs.pdf doc/manual/darcs.ps: \
    doc/manual/darcs.%: darc/manual/darcs_print.%
    	mv $< $@

I could also change the install-% rule to explicitly install darcs.pdf
and patch_theory.pdf instead of *.pdf, but that makes me feel bad.
Also, it would mean that additional documents we might add wouldn't
automatically be installed.


More information about the darcs-users mailing list