On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 12:14 AM, Mathieu Lirzin <m...@gnu.org> wrote: > Hi, > > Federico Beffa <be...@ieee.org> writes: > >> HTML is not better than Info. Here we only need to keep it for >> 'emacs-mit-scheme-doc' to work. This is functionality for mit-scheme >> whereby Emacs looks up the documentation for the identifier at point. >> >> For PDFs, it depends on the type and quality of the manual. If it is >> short and/or poor, then nobody will spend hours reading it. But if the >> manual is good and long, then there is a chance that people will spend >> a lot of time reading it and it would be nice to have a good quality >> environment to read it (again, I'm talking about font graphics >> rendering). >> >> This is analogous to making public buildings suitable for people with >> wheel-chairs, ... may people don't care, until they are affected :-( > > Sorry I don't understand your analogy. IIUC the discussion is about > what should be installed with the default output. Putting the PDF > version of the manual in the 'doc' output will not prevent anyone to use > it. Did I miss something?
Well, the discussion is about this sentence: I just realized that its documentation is in Texinfo format. What about simply installing the Info format like we do for other GNU packages, and not the PDF/PS/DVI version? I can't find: why don't we put the PDF/PS/DVI in a different output. If I misunderstood then my bad. But being less cryptic and more explicit would prevent that. Regards, Fede
