[2/4] gdb/doc: don't try to copy GDBvn.texi from the source tree

  Long ago we used to carry a copy of GDBvn.texi in the source tree.
The build recipe for gdb.dvi and gdb.pdf contained instructions for
copying this file from the source tree if the file had not been
generated.

That's right, we also have a rule that builds GDBvn.texi, and
GDBvn.texi is in the dependency list for both gdb.dvi and gdb.pdf.

On top of this, GDBvn.texi was removed from the source tree in 2000,
in this commit:

  commit 1171f8d754f71e35fd2f6c4e82b00f3c685e515f
  Date:   Tue Feb 8 03:37:34 2000 +0000

      2000-02-07  Jason Molenda  (jsm@bugshack.cygnus.com)

I think we can assume that everyone is happy generating GDBvn.texi, so
lets remove the redundant copying code.
---
 gdb/doc/Makefile.in | 17 -----------------
 1 file changed, 17 deletions(-)
  

>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Burgess <aburgess@redhat.com> writes:

Andrew> That's right, we also have a rule that builds GDBvn.texi, and
Andrew> GDBvn.texi is in the dependency list for both gdb.dvi and gdb.pdf.

Andrew> On top of this, GDBvn.texi was removed from the source tree in 2000,
Andrew> in this commit:

Andrew>   commit 1171f8d754f71e35fd2f6c4e82b00f3c685e515f
Andrew>   Date:   Tue Feb 8 03:37:34 2000 +0000

Andrew>       2000-02-07  Jason Molenda  (jsm@bugshack.cygnus.com)

Andrew> I think we can assume that everyone is happy generating GDBvn.texi, so
Andrew> lets remove the redundant copying code.

I am not sure about this change.

I downloaded gdb-14.2.tar.xz and I do see gdb/doc/GDBvn.texi in the
source tree there.  I think this is done because we also ship the .info
files, so that users won't have to have makeinfo in order to build.

(I'm not sure how well that plan really works since there used to be
open bugs about not building when makeinfo is missing ... not sure of
the current state.)

Tom
  

> From: Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com>
> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 10:12:35 -0600
> 
> >>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Burgess <aburgess@redhat.com> writes:
> 
> Andrew> That's right, we also have a rule that builds GDBvn.texi, and
> Andrew> GDBvn.texi is in the dependency list for both gdb.dvi and gdb.pdf.
> 
> Andrew> On top of this, GDBvn.texi was removed from the source tree in 2000,
> Andrew> in this commit:
> 
> Andrew>   commit 1171f8d754f71e35fd2f6c4e82b00f3c685e515f
> Andrew>   Date:   Tue Feb 8 03:37:34 2000 +0000
> 
> Andrew>       2000-02-07  Jason Molenda  (jsm@bugshack.cygnus.com)
> 
> Andrew> I think we can assume that everyone is happy generating GDBvn.texi, so
> Andrew> lets remove the redundant copying code.
> 
> I am not sure about this change.
> 
> I downloaded gdb-14.2.tar.xz and I do see gdb/doc/GDBvn.texi in the
> source tree there.  I think this is done because we also ship the .info
> files, so that users won't have to have makeinfo in order to build.

Right.  So I don't think we should remove GDBvn.texi from the tarball.

> (I'm not sure how well that plan really works since there used to be
> open bugs about not building when makeinfo is missing ... not sure of
> the current state.)

Building GDB doesn't require running makeinfo, at least it didn't in
GDB 14.
  

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com>
>> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
>> Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 10:12:35 -0600
>> 
>> >>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Burgess <aburgess@redhat.com> writes:
>> 
>> Andrew> That's right, we also have a rule that builds GDBvn.texi, and
>> Andrew> GDBvn.texi is in the dependency list for both gdb.dvi and gdb.pdf.
>> 
>> Andrew> On top of this, GDBvn.texi was removed from the source tree in 2000,
>> Andrew> in this commit:
>> 
>> Andrew>   commit 1171f8d754f71e35fd2f6c4e82b00f3c685e515f
>> Andrew>   Date:   Tue Feb 8 03:37:34 2000 +0000
>> 
>> Andrew>       2000-02-07  Jason Molenda  (jsm@bugshack.cygnus.com)
>> 
>> Andrew> I think we can assume that everyone is happy generating GDBvn.texi, so
>> Andrew> lets remove the redundant copying code.
>> 
>> I am not sure about this change.
>> 
>> I downloaded gdb-14.2.tar.xz and I do see gdb/doc/GDBvn.texi in the
>> source tree there.  I think this is done because we also ship the .info
>> files, so that users won't have to have makeinfo in order to build.
>
> Right.  So I don't think we should remove GDBvn.texi from the tarball.

OK, I'll drop this patch.  I'll likely post the inverse patch at some
point -- we have other recipes that use GDBvn.texi, but don't include
the copy code, so maybe they should?

I'll take another look, including trying with a release tar ball, maybe
there's a reason why some rules that depend on GDBvn.texi, while others
don't.... but that can all wait for some future patch.

>
>> (I'm not sure how well that plan really works since there used to be
>> open bugs about not building when makeinfo is missing ... not sure of
>> the current state.)
>
> Building GDB doesn't require running makeinfo, at least it didn't in
> GDB 14.

I'll double check the status of this after these changes.

Thanks,
Andrew
  

On 2024-05-13 17:12, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Burgess <aburgess@redhat.com> writes:
> 
> Andrew> That's right, we also have a rule that builds GDBvn.texi, and
> Andrew> GDBvn.texi is in the dependency list for both gdb.dvi and gdb.pdf.
> 
> Andrew> On top of this, GDBvn.texi was removed from the source tree in 2000,
> Andrew> in this commit:
> 
> Andrew>   commit 1171f8d754f71e35fd2f6c4e82b00f3c685e515f
> Andrew>   Date:   Tue Feb 8 03:37:34 2000 +0000
> 
> Andrew>       2000-02-07  Jason Molenda  (jsm@bugshack.cygnus.com)
> 
> Andrew> I think we can assume that everyone is happy generating GDBvn.texi, so
> Andrew> lets remove the redundant copying code.
> 
> I am not sure about this change.
> 
> I downloaded gdb-14.2.tar.xz and I do see gdb/doc/GDBvn.texi in the
> source tree there.  I think this is done because we also ship the .info
> files, so that users won't have to have makeinfo in order to build.
> 
> (I'm not sure how well that plan really works since there used to be
> open bugs about not building when makeinfo is missing ... not sure of
> the current state.)

Sometimes filesystem timestamps will end up messed up and building a
release will want to rebuild the docs.  But you can always work around
that with "make MAKEINFO=true".