Re: Problem when install DOCSTRINGS

[John W. Eaton]

On  5-Oct-2012, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:

| On 5 October 2012 04:22, Carnë Draug <address@hidden> wrote:
| > On 5 October 2012 08:05, Stefan Husmann <address@hidden> wrote:
| 
| >> patch attached
| 
| > could you please submit this to the bug and patch tracker at
| > http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?func=additem&group=octave
| 
| And if it's not too much trouble, in the future could you make a
| commit?
| 
|     http://jordi.inversethought.com/blog/how-to-write-a-patch-for-octave/
|     
http://www.gnu.org/software/octave/doc/interpreter/Contributing-Guidelines.html
| 
| For the moment I have applied your patch, but I had to do a little bit
| of work to figure out which Makefile.am you meant:
| 
|     http://hg.savannah.gnu.org/hgweb/octave/rev/f62c2c57b800
| 
| If you're patching against the stable release, please tell us against
| which stable release. If you patch using Mercurial, then this
| information (revision to patch, the commit message, your name, the
| branch you're patching) will be encoded when you do "hg export".

Currently, the DOCSTRINGS file
is not needed unless we are generating the documentation, so this
change works to fix the immediate build problem.  But we are about to
change the way docstrings work for built-in functions so that Octave
will load them from a file instead of having them compiled into the
binary.  So then this change will cause docstrings to be unavailable
for built-in functions if --disable-docs is used.

The --disable-docs option was intended to allow the build to continue
when TeX is not available.  But building the DOCSTRINGS file does not
require TeX, so I think we should just arrange to always build the
DOCSTRINGS file, even when --disable-docs is used.

jwe