Subject: bug#74042: [PATCH] Accept texi2any for version identification

From: Stefan Kangas <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2024 14:01:03 -0700

Eli Zaretskii <[email-masked]> writes:

>> From: Mats Lidell <[email-masked]>
>> Cc: [email-masked]
>> Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2024 18:50:59 +0100
>>
>> Hi Eli,
>>
>> > Eli Zaretskii writes:
>> > Can you explain the rationale?  IOW, when does the current code not
>> > doing its job?
>>
>> If the user generates the info file by using texi2any the check for version
>> number fails and the fact that "index cookies" are supported is lost.
>
> Why would users do that by invoking texi2any directly?

Because that what the Texinfo documentation tells you to do now.

The Info node (info "(texinfo) Info Files") says:

       Info files are nearly always created by processing a Texinfo
    source document.  ‘texi2any’, also known as ‘makeinfo’, is the
    principal command that converts a Texinfo file into an Info file;
    see texi2any.

    [...]

       With the release of ‘texi2any’ as the reference implementation,
    development of both the C implementation of ‘makeinfo’ and
    ‘texi2html’ has been halted.  Going forward, we ask authors of
    Texinfo documents to use only ‘texi2any’.

Furthermore, the index entry for `makeinfo` in the Texinfo manual leads
to (info "(texinfo) Invoking texi2any"), and there they again tell you
to use `texi2any`:

    To process a Texinfo file, invoke ‘texi2any’ followed by the name of
    the Texinfo file.  Also select the format you want to output with
    the appropriate command line option (default is Info).  Thus, to
    create the Info file for Bison, type the following to the shell:

         texi2any --info bison.texi

> FTR, I'm very unhappy about this change.  I don't think we should
> support this.  It is not future-proof.

I installed it before seeing your objections; I assumed it was
uncontroversial.  I'm probably missing some nuances here as I'm far
removed from Texinfo development, but the documentation at least is
clear.  At the very least, we should support the recommended use of
Texinfo, and that's all that Mats's patch does, AFAICT.