Re: what should be installed in the default case?

[Karl Berry]

Hi Patrice,

    texi2html may be installed under 3 names: texi2html, makeinfo and
    texi2any. 

I can't remember if we discussed before, but are there options to
determine the behavior as well?  We shouldn't use argv[0] *only*.  I
poked around in the code for a couple minutes, but wasn't sure.

    as texi2any, the default output is raw text and it accepts more 
    options, 

I see makeinfo_options in texi2html.pl.  Where are the additional
options for texi2{any,html} given?  Does the meaning of any option
change, or is it just additions?  Sorry that my brain can't keep track
of this from when we talked about it before.

    I think that texi2html should not be installed as long as 
    it is distributed in a separate tarball. 

Really?  I would have thought there is no harm in installing texi2html
too (by default), instead of making people download the separate
texi2html package.

    * should texi2any be installed? 

Yes.

    Or should makeinfo have the texi2any options added  

Unless there is a conflict, I see no reason not to add the options to
makeinfo.  In principle.

      and still be used as the converter of choice?

We invented texi2any as a "better name" for makeinfo, and so we could
change some defaults, right?  In general, I think texi2any can be
considered canonical, but since makeinfo is the one that has existed for
umpteen years, it is the one that will be used in practice.  So
enhancing it is good.

    * if texi2any is installed
       - should the makeinfo perl replace the C-makeinfo? 

Definitely.

       If yes should C-makeinfo still be installed under a different 
         name?

No.  Then we'd be in the position of having to maintain two separate
implementations, which is what we were trying to avoid in the first place.

       - should texi2any be advertized as the tool to use instead
         of makeinfo?

Not "instead of"; "as well as".  We'll support both (and texi2html),
going forward.

Thanks much,
Karl