Re: [avr-libc-dev] Re: circ dep fix

[Theodore A. Roth]

On Sat, 3 Aug 2002, Joerg Wunsch wrote:

>> I think a better approach for the pdf version would be to add
>> --with-pdlatex to configure.in.
>
>Is it really that useful?  IOW, does anybody use other LaTeX packets
>these days than teTeX?  pdflatex is in all recent teTeX distributions.
>
>Still, i'd like to get a solution that is able to build both, PS and
>PDF at the same time.  (I wouldn't mind it if the build process is
>tunable so one could decide to leave out one or both of these
>formats.)  PS might be the version that is better for printing (in
>environments where printing a PS file is quite common), while PDF is
>better for browsing through the document online.  Sure, there's also
>the HTML version for online browsing, but it looks quite a bit
>different from the printed version.
>
>While people who personally compile all this for their own use will
>probably have their own preferences about which documentation format
>they prefer most, keep in mind that most of our installations aren't
>compiled personally by the end-user, but by someone who's building
>an installable package out of the sources, and distributing it.
>Incidentally, i'm the one doing this for FreeBSD :), so that might
>explain why i'd like to see a knob that turns on all the possible
>documentation formats.
>
>(Background for the other list members: with doxygen 2.1.17, setting
>USE_PDFLATEX = YES in the doxygen.config file causes doxygen to
>generate a latex/Makefile that is /only/ usable to build a PDF file.
>Setting USE_PDFLATEX = NO however generates a latex/Makefile that
>can build a PS file, and convert it into PDF then.)

You make valid points. I see no problem with building html, ps and pdf. 


Ted Roth