Martin Ågren wrote: > On Thu, 13 May 2021 at 00:28, Felipe Contreras > <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Will be useful later with asciidoctor that can do both at the same time. > > > -%.1 %.5 %.7 : %.xml manpage-base-url.xsl $(wildcard manpage*.xsl) > > - $(QUIET_XMLTO)$(XMLTO) -m $(MANPAGE_XSL) $(XMLTO_EXTRA) man $< > > - > > -%.xml : %.txt $(ASCIIDOC_DEPS) > > - $(QUIET_ASCIIDOC)$(TXT_TO_XML) -d manpage -o $@ $< > > +%.1 %.5 %.7 : %.txt $(ASCIIDOC_DEPS) manpage-base-url.xsl $(wildcard manpage*.xsl) > > + $(QUIET_ASCIIDOC)$(TXT_TO_XML) -d manpage -o $*.xml $< && \ > > + $(XMLTO) -m $(MANPAGE_XSL) $(XMLTO_EXTRA) man $*.xml > > It does mean that if manpage-base-url.xsl changes, we'll regenerate all > the xml files. Before this change, we would just rerun the xmlto step. True. > Also, this will break `make info`. Ahh, I didn't see that dependency on MAN_XML. > (If you're wondering if anyone is actually using `make info`, there's > some discussion at [1]. I don't think anyone would be too sad to see it > go. Once `make info` is the only reason we need to generate the xml > files, I think it's a given we should try to drop that stuff.) Perhaps, but not in this patch series. > I think we should keep the separate xml targets as long as "asciidoctor > without xmlto" isn't the only way we support building the manpages. If > the only benefit here is "later", I think we should do this patch later. > I could also imagine that the xml target will just go away once all the > "old" ways of building the manpages are gone and `make info` is gone, > i.e., when we simply don't need any of these generated xml files. Agreed. I will drop this in the next version. Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras
