Subject: bug#8099: LaTeX and automake

From: Reuben Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 15:42:33 +0000

On 2 March 2011 22:13, Reuben Thomas <[email-masked]> wrote:
> On 2 March 2011 22:12, Ralf Wildenhues <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> I just learned about rubber which also aims to deal with latex documents.
>> Have you looked at it yet?
>
> No, I will do so.

Initial impressions are good: rubber is much more cleanly written than
latexmk, and I can use pretty much the same automake rules with it:

LATEX_SRCS = ... # top-level .tex files

LATEX_PDFS = ... # top-level PDF outputs

pdf-local: $(LATEX_PDFS)

CLEANFILES = $(LATEX_PDFS)

clean-local:
	$(RUBBER) --clean $(PAPER_SRCS)

EXTRA_DIST = $(LATEX_SRCS)

.tex.pdf:
	$(RUBBER) --pdf $<

I distribute the PDFs, so change CLEANFILES to MAINTIANERCLEANFILES.

I have not tried extracting dependency information yet, but it seems
very straightforward: rubber-info --deps foo.tex gives a
space-separated list of all the dependencies. So, other than worrying
about filenames containing spaces (sigh), one would imagine just
adding that information to the Makefile.

This means, effectively, delegating the semantics of rebuilding to
rubber, but that seems a reasonable starting-point.

Thoughts?

-- 
http://rrt.sc3d.org