Subject: bug#54063: automake cannot run without generated Texinfo manual

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2022 13:08:15 +0100

On Sat, Feb 26, 2022 at 12:07:09AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On 25 Feb 2022 16:06, Karl Berry wrote:
> > Adding a note to the manual is fine, but what would be (much) more
> > likely to actually get noticed by users is a runtime warning. What is
> > the actual behavior when the basename and @setfilename don't match?
> 
> i don't think it's possible to detect from automake, at least at `automake`
> time.  the point of Patrice's report is that the sources don't exist when
> automake runs, so it's not possible to inspect them.  trying to go further
> (having automake attempt to trace partial makefile?  have it generate a
> check that runs on the user's system at `make` time?) feels like it's
> intruding on the territory of texinfo for no real gain.

I agree, especially if a @setfilename different from the file name
is used on purpose to have a different output name than the base name.

I just tested a mismatch between filename and @setfilename with automake.
The file name is toto.texi and @setfilename my_output.info.  make info
works.  make html fails with:

make: *** No rule to make target 'toto.html', needed by 'html-am'.  Stop.

make my_output.html works.

I do not think that this needs to be fixed in case at Texinfo we
consider that @setfilename different from the file name is bad and that
@setfilename more generally should be deprecated.  My recommendation
would be to leave unsaid for now whether automake supports or not a
different file name than @setfilename for non generated texinfo manuals
in case it is later considered relevant, probably based on the advice
from the Texinfo crowd.

-- 
Pat