Re: Install munge-texi.pl for use by packages?

[Olaf Till]

On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 11:10:53AM -0400, Mike Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 18:07:24 +0200, Olaf Till wrote:
> > Could munge-texi.pl be an installed component (maybe under a different
> > name) for use by packages for their documentation?
> >
> > Or would it be an additional hindrance for users building packages
> > with pkg() to assume the presence of Perl on systems like Windows?
> 
> I would think that depending on Perl to install packages would be undesirable.
> 
> Or would you propose that the output of munge-texi.pl would be
> distributed in the package tarball so users installing the package do
> not need it? That only package maintainers (of packages that have
> Texinfo manuals) would need it to build the docs before uploading?

I wouldn't propose the latter, since what is done by the package using
munge-texi.pl would completely be determined by the packages Makefile
and could only be done before tarball distribution by pre-compiling
the package.

Regarding depending on Perl, it later occured to me that Windows users
usually have to use pre-compiled packages anyway, so depending on Perl
actually should not be an additional problem there ... (?)

> Alternatively, how complicated is munge-texi.pl? Could it be rewritten
> as an Octave function? I'm not looking at it at the moment.

Probably, but only within a package or as an additional file, not as a
replacement for Octaves own file, since Octave uses it during the
build process :-).

> What does
> it do that you would like to use in your package?

The same as what it does in an Octave build, incorporating function
help texts into the texinfo file.



Carlo:
On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 05:24:00PM +0200, c. wrote:
> 
> On 7 Jul 2014, at 17:10, Mike Miller <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> > Alternatively, how complicated is munge-texi.pl? Could it be rewritten
> > as an Octave function? 
> 
> it's 121 lines and it looks pretty simple to me.
> it's just a set of regular expression substitutions.
> if needed it could indeed be easily replaced by a sed 
> or awk or octave script.

As for an Octave script, see response to Mike, as for sed or awk,
there might be the same issue as for Perl (?).



The reason for my asking wasn't that rewriting munge-texi.pl in a
package would be too complicated, but that I thought there shouldn't
be two different versions of the same script, which might get out of
sync. It'd be just not "the right way". But I daresay it wouldn't be
impossible.

Olaf

-- 
public key id EAFE0591, e.g. on x-hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature