Subject: Re: bug#8099: LaTeX and automake

From: Reuben Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 21:07:17 +0000

On 28 February 2011 20:43, Ralf Wildenhues <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Hi Reuben,
>
>
> I'm not sure if I said it before; but I wouldn't be surprised if there
> is interest to let latexmk (continue to) exist independently from
> Automake.

That's what I was assuming.

>  It's not even clear how big the benefit of a merge would be; at
> least to me it is not yet.

It's more that I suspect given how big and crufty it is, automake
would want its own version that we could make smaller and less crufty,
including getting rid of functionality that is irrelevant to automake,
as I already discussed.

> Not just that.  You (or we) should be thinking hard about desired
> semantics first.  And a small part of that is showing how example
> rules would look like: both what you'd use now, without automake,
> and also what you'd like to be using with automake support, and
> also what automake would then generate for you.

I already exhibited examples of what I use now and what I would like
to see. To progress really needs more use cases.

-- 
http://rrt.sc3d.org