GNU bug report logs - #79054
epsf.tex: New file

Message received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org:

Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Jul 2025 21:40:44 +0000
From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Sat Jul 19 17:40:44 2025
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45442 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1udFIR-0007vA-Rj
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 19 Jul 2025 17:40:44 -0400
Received: from lists.gnu.org ([2001:470:142::17]:57880)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <karl@HIDDEN>)
 id 1udFIP-0007tp-7k
 for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 19 Jul 2025 17:40:42 -0400
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10])
 by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <karl@HIDDEN>)
 id 1udFHp-0000Zf-Jy; Sat, 19 Jul 2025 17:40:09 -0400
Received: from frenzy.freefriends.org ([198.99.81.75] helo=freefriends.org)
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <karl@HIDDEN>)
 id 1udFHl-0007VK-Ig; Sat, 19 Jul 2025 17:40:04 -0400
X-Envelope-From: karl@HIDDEN
Received: from freefriends.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by freefriends.org (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPS id 56JLdkpe938681
 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT);
 Sat, 19 Jul 2025 15:39:46 -0600
Received: (from karl@localhost)
 by freefriends.org (8.16.1/8.14.7/Submit) id 56JLdknQ938678;
 Sat, 19 Jul 2025 15:39:46 -0600
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2025 15:39:46 -0600
Message-Id: <202507192139.56JLdknQ938678@HIDDEN>
From: Karl Berry <karl@HIDDEN>
To: eggert@HIDDEN
Subject: Re: epsf.tex: New file
In-Reply-To: <8a3cd93f-cac6-49b8-b470-3e0e31fc5bb1@HIDDEN>
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=198.99.81.75; envelope-from=karl@HIDDEN;
 helo=freefriends.org
X-Spam_score_int: -41
X-Spam_score: -4.2
X-Spam_bar: ----
X-Spam_report: (-4.2 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3,
 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001,
 SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
X-Spam_action: no action
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit
Cc: bug-gnulib@HIDDEN, bug-automake@HIDDEN, bruno@HIDDEN
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-)

    Works for me, but don't we need to change the GNU coding standards to do 
    even that?

To my eyes, the coding standards only prescribe the existence of the
various dvi targets and variables. They don't say that making dvi is a
dependency of either check or installcheck. The distcheck target is not
mentioned in the standards, so we can change its behavior with impunity.

If we wanted to no longer require dvi files to be distributed with the
other formats on www.gnu.org (which sounds fine to me), that would need
a small change to maintain.texi. --best, karl.