Open GoogleCodeExporter opened 9 years ago
Interesting. So, essentially, you just changed BIBTEX to biber, and changed
$*.aux to $*.bcf? Does that sum it up correctly?
Original comment by shiblon
on 2 Mar 2011 at 8:30
I'd love for a bit more detail here, not sure how to fit your snippet into the
makefile and would like to use Biber.
Original comment by jebar...@gmail.com
on 20 Mar 2011 at 7:20
Me, too :)
Original comment by shiblon
on 21 Mar 2011 at 2:21
Thanks, this works. Just do exactly what he described. Put his snippet behind
----
$(call get-bibs,$*.aux.make,$(addprefix $*.,bbl aux aux.make)) >> $*.d; \
----
this line.
Original comment by tobias.n...@gmail.com
on 1 Aug 2011 at 10:39
OK - before I jump in and make this change, I want to be absolutely sure that I
understand what is going on (fiddling with bibtex is fraught with peril in the
makefile, and it is useful to chart a course carefully first).
Let's make sure that I know the facts.
- the bibtex binary is still used, but with a special option backend=biber? Or
is there a biber binary?
- Is biber "latex source compatible" with bibtex? In other words, does it
still use commands like \bibliography and \bibliographystyle?
- Biber writes bib information into .bcf instead of .aux, but it is exactly the
same information?
So far so good?
Original comment by shiblon
on 3 Aug 2011 at 7:01
- the bibtex binary is still used, but with a special option backend=biber? Or
is > there a biber binary?
Both. There is a biber binary, but one can also use bibtex. In order to use
biber one has to load the package biblatex with the option backend=biber. Only
that produces a .bcf file. Without this option, no .bcf file is produced.
- Is biber "latex source compatible" with bibtex? In other words, does it
still use commands like \bibliography and \bibliographystyle?
I think some effort has been made to make it backwards compatible, but the
default is now to use different commands to produce bibliographies (e.g.,
\printbibliograph).
- Biber writes bib information into .bcf instead of .aux, but it is exactly the
same information?
It does write to .bcf; I doubt that it is the same information, but haven't
checked.
Original comment by philipp....@gmail.com
on 19 Sep 2011 at 5:59
Wow, it's been a while since I looked at this.
I think that the patch is wrong, too. The test [ -n $*.bcf ] will *always* be
true, so the code will *always* execute. That can't be right. I think it's
possible that [ -s '$*.bcf' ] was intended instead, but can't be sure until
I've had a better explanation of what this code snippet is supposed to do.
Thoughts and explanations welcome.
Original comment by shiblon
on 11 Nov 2011 at 7:18
I'll look into this.
Original comment by Holger.D...@gmail.com
on 16 May 2012 at 6:57
Somehow the biber hack doesn't work for me. It doesn't matter whether I insert
it as posted originally or the proposed fix by shiblon, I still get the "Please
(re)run Biber on the file" message without another run being triggered :/
The *.bib files are all listed in the .d file but there doesn't seem to be a
recognition of undefined references.
Original comment by pinkbunn...@googlemail.com
on 11 Sep 2012 at 8:12
What is strange though is the fact that not even touching one of the bib files
triggers biber. I still get these, too:
I found no \citation commands---while reading file main.aux
I found no \bibdata command---while reading file main.aux
I found no \bibstyle command---while reading file main.aux
Could this be a problem of 2.2.1-alpha9 or am I just being stupid?
Original comment by pinkbunn...@googlemail.com
on 11 Sep 2012 at 9:31
... [ -s $*.bcf ] ... works fine for me. Since -n .. doesn't make sense, -s
seems most suitable: the command should not be executed if there is no bcf file
or an empty file.
As jaripekk..., I'm using the biber command instead of bibtex.
Original comment by jfgr...@gmail.com
on 8 Jan 2013 at 3:47
Original comment by Holger.D...@gmail.com
on 21 May 2013 at 4:52
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
jaripekk...@gmail.com
on 10 Feb 2011 at 7:49