Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2002/05/23/03:57:49
On Wed, 22 May 2002, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > From: pavenis AT lanet DOT lv
> > Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 15:31:00 +0300
> >
> > Tried to generate documentation packages for GCC-3.1 (gcc31d.zip and
> > g7731d.zip). Here is what they contains:
>
> Looks okay to me.
>
> > I generated most files under Linux. PDF files were generated by dvipdfm.exe
> > from MikTeX under Win98SE. Is it Ok?
>
> Yes.
>
> > Previous related package (gcc2952d.zip)
> > contains additional files I left out.
> >
> > Archive: gcc2952d.zip
> > Length Date Time Name
> > -------- ---- ---- ----
> > 0 08-12-00 04:11 gnudocs/gcc-2.952/cpp.vr
> > 0 08-12-00 04:12 gnudocs/gcc-2.952/gcc.vr
>
> I'd suggest to include these and other TeX output files as well: they
> make subsequent runs of texi2dvi much shorter, should the user decide
> to regenerate the DVI files (e.g., if they modify the Texinfo sources
> or want to run TeX with some special options). The files are small
> (some are zero size), so the archives don't grow by much.
>
> FWIW, all GNU distributions that come with a DVI file also come with
> these auxiliary files.
Not all packages in v2gnu contains them as far as I tested. I also think
that they are not needed for end user so I think it would be best to leave
them out. Regenerating files does not require additional tools when these
files are missing, only repeting process some more time. Also
perhaps only small part of users will rebuild DVI files themselves and
this does not take too much time on today's computers even without these
additional files. I myself built documentation (except PDF files) on
rather slow Pentium 200MMX.
Andris
- Raw text -