[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