On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 07:04:19PM -0600, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote: > Gavin Smith wrote: > > There are many manuals that I couldn't get easily as there wasn't a > > link to download the Texinfo sources on the website (where there was, > > this was always because the web manuals were generated with the > > gendocs script). It would be a never-ending project to try to get > > everything and the dependencies for all the manuals, but if there are > > other manuals that are important to check that aren't listed below, > > you could let me know if you know how to get hold of them. > > As a maintainer of DejaGnu, the DejaGnu manual is important to me and > getting an up-to-date copy just might point the way to getting more Texinfo > sources. The latest revision is available at > <URL:https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/dejagnu.git/tree/doc/dejagnu.texi> > and its only dependencies are "version.texi" (which is common with > Automake-using projects and can be easily stubbed out) and "fdl.texi" (the > text of the GFDL). > > I expect that many GNU projects are likely to have manual sources in > analogous locations on Savannah.
Thanks, I added your manual. (It raised no issues. Only odd thing in the manual was that you had "@documentencoding us-ascii", but it was all ASCII anyway. The Texinfo manual documents that this has no effect, so it's not clear to me whether the encoding should be treated as UTF-8 or as ISO-8859-1 (as both include ASCII as a subset).) I wasn't sure if it would be the case, but all the git repositories are listed at: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/ I guess this is an interface to git repositories so the files you see there may not be easily downloadable with a script without actually cloning the git repository themselves, which would use a lot of network data. You could probably write a script to do a shallow git clone of some of these repositories, especially where they have a doc subdirectory. (Over 1000 are listed there). Preferrably in a way that doesn't use 10's or even 100's of GB of network traffic. It does seem like a sensible thing to do, rather than inadvertently breaking some manuals and waiting for users to complain about it: if issues can be discovered before a release, why not do so? Most manuals will be fairly similar in the functionality that they exercise, but "quantity has a quality of its own" and processing a large amount of manuals is likely to bring things up.
