# Aw: Re: [PATCH] Remove pdf target from Makefiles

2 messages from 2013-06-18 to 2013-06-18. Participants: Thomas Ackermann, Jonathan Nieder.
Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/34189

## Thomas Ackermann, 2013-06-18 07:59

Subject: Aw: Re: [PATCH] Remove pdf target from Makefiles
Message-ID: <146574770.2154401.1371542391078.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net>
URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/146574770.2154401.1371542391078.JavaMail.ngmail%40webmail18.arcor-online.net

```
> 
> I don't understand.  Do you mean that you want to change the rules
> that generate user-manual.xml?  Would generating different XML files
> for the PDF and for other purposes (with different names) work as a
> way to achieve that without losing the printable manual?
> 

This would be even worse when we have to create different xml depending on the
wanted output. The problem here is in the xml->pdf/html step: I wanted to change
the formatting of links in the pdf from "Section <number>" to "<section_name>" to
make it the same as in the html. Thereby I noticed that the definition for this is
in files from /etc/asciidoc/dblatex. So to change it we have to introduce our own files
in ./Documentation and work on them to bring the formatting of user-manual.html
and user-manual.pdf closer together.


---
Thomas

```

## Jonathan Nieder, 2013-06-18 16:19

Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] Remove pdf target from Makefiles
Message-ID: <20130618161946.GA2887@elie.Belkin>
URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20130618161946.GA2887%40elie.Belkin
In-Reply-To: <146574770.2154401.1371542391078.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net>

```
Thomas Ackermann wrote:

>>                                 Would generating different XML files
>> for the PDF and for other purposes (with different names) work as a
>> way to achieve that without losing the printable manual?
>
> This would be even worse when we have to create different xml depending on the
> wanted output. The problem here is in the xml->pdf/html step: I wanted to change
> the formatting of links in the pdf from "Section <number>" to "<section_name>" to
> make it the same as in the html. Thereby I noticed that the definition for this is
> in files from /etc/asciidoc/dblatex. So to change it we have to introduce our own files
> in ./Documentation and work on them to bring the formatting of user-manual.html
> and user-manual.pdf closer together.

Now I'm even more confused. ;-)

If I understood the original commit message correctly, you were saying
the XML file was not suitable for html generation and you wanted to
tweak it, and were dropping the PDF target to avoid breaking it.  Now
if I understand correctly you are saying the XML file actually *is*
suitable for html generation, and that the html generation rules just
need tweaking.  In that case, why remove the PDF target?

Puzzled,
Jonathan

```