Re: Building the .info files in build directory.

[Bruce Korb]

Simon Richter wrote:
> > I don't think this is true in general, a texinfo file could @include a
> > file that is built during the build phase.
> 
> True, however that's a bad thing IMO, as it requires the user to have a
> working texinfo installation.
> 
> > (For example, I generate Texinfo code documenting the library based on
> > comments in the source files, and some source files may be generated,
> > as in foo.h.in -> foo.h to add version information to a header file.
> > Compare http://josefsson.org/gdoc/.)
> 
> I've not yet come across a point where it is necessary or a good idea to
> extract documentation from source files generated at the user's site.
> 
> For stuff that depends on the local software configuration
[[...]]

Fundamentally, I think the argument boils down to whether or not .texi/.info
files should get built at a client (customer) site.  The answer is that
it must be possible.  Just because some folks think one ought not do such
a thing doesn't make it reasonable to make doing it impossible.  What does
make sense is having a special phoney target which, when specified, says,
"I have all the tools for reconstructing docs from scratch.  Please
re-derive and rebuild them." and then construct the dependencies in such
a way that they are independent of the default/"all" target.