Bruce Korb writes:
> Karl Berry wrote:
>
> > 2. Please make available enable/disable macros for each output type:
> > info, html, xml, ps, ...
> >
> > I agree we could support all the formats (currently: info html xml
> > docbook ps pdf plaintext) uniformly,
>
> Good.
I would pref
[Eric I don't think you really meant to conceal this from Karl
and Patrice, so I've added the Cc: back. Please be careful not
to drop it.]
>>> "Eric" == Eric Siegerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Eric> On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 12:19:05PM -0800, Bruce Korb wrote:
[...]
>> Yeah! That's the idea!
Dis.count Ph.armacy Onlin.e
Sa.ve up t.o %8O orde.ring your meds online
No presc.ription required
fast disc.reet s.hipping, o.ernight nextday air
FDA & Do.ctor Ap.proved
Xan.ax - Cia.lis - Via.gra - Vali.um
Pl.ace Your Or.der Here Tod.ay
no moore
astm lizzie adjust squad educate cephe
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 05:02:45PM -0500, Karl Berry wrote:
> Couldn't the developer specify the minimum version of Texinfo which is
> required in order to handle the docs?
I'd like to see this. Every time I've tried to feed a .info file
to a too-old texinfo, I've gotten some random err
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 05:02:45PM -0500, Karl Berry wrote:
> If, as in Bruce's proposal, they explicitly say "I want HTML", when
> there's no HTML in the distribution, that's one thing. Making it happen
> when they say "configure && make install", quite another.
BTW, this is another case like co
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 12:19:05PM -0800, Bruce Korb wrote:
> Karl Berry wrote:
>
> > 1. Please shorten to "html" (as is done for "ps")
> >
> > I'm not sure. By Bob's argument, `html' could be useful to stand for
> > any sort of HTML generation, if there is non-Texinfo documentation involve
Couldn't the developer specify the minimum version of Texinfo which is
required in order to handle the docs?
In practice, no one has time for that. As you say, they therefore could
specify what they use (the latest, probably), and then older versions
will fail (when they shouldn't, prob
Thanks man, make distcheck dies with because of permissions or
something. but if i do a make dist, then untargz it, configure it and
make ... PERFECT!
thanks again
-Nigel
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 03:05:55PM -0600, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Nigel Kukard wrote:
>
> > So if i ta
Doesn't pretty much every distribution use /usr/share/doc for this and
other package documentation at this point?
Sure, many distributions do this, on a per-package per-version basis as
far as I know. /usr/share/doc/emacs-21.2, etc. The distribution makers
do it all themselves, it's no
Karl Berry wrote:
> 1. Please shorten to "html" (as is done for "ps")
>
> I'm not sure. By Bob's argument, `html' could be useful to stand for
> any sort of HTML generation, if there is non-Texinfo documentation involved.
Yeah! That's the idea! Type in, ``make html'' and any html-making
Karl Berry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In order to make this most useful for people to browse manuals locally
> (with file://localhost), it seems it might finally be time to propose a
> standard directory for HTML output from Texinfo manuals.
> The obvious directory would be $(datadir)/html by
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Karl Berry wrote:
>
> I can't imagine any method for autoconf to test for a "good enough"
> Texinfo, since there's no way to specify exactly which Texinfo features
> are (a) used in the source docs, or (b) implemented in the available
> Texinfo.
Couldn't the developer specify
If a format is included in the distribution, it is enabled by default.
If a format is not included, then it is disabled by default. If someone
enables a format that was not distributed, then they are claiming that
they have some development tools that are up to the task of regenera
Karl Berry wrote:
>
> We seem to be operating from different starting places.
Always true ;-), but I also understood your intent
> Having configure options such as --enable-doc-html is fine, if for some
> reason installers want to (re)generate the files.
Maybe I'm overloading the meaning of tha
We seem to be operating from different starting places.
What I'm concerned about is the standard method for installing GNU
packages: if a user downloads and unpacks foo-1.2.tar.gz, and types
"./configure && make install", they should not need to have any version
of Texinfo (or Bison or Flex or ...
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Bruce Korb wrote:
> Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
>
> > I am against having separate install targets because GNU makefiles
> > normally install everything by default and that is what users should
> > expect. Installing everything is not a problem for distribution
> > maintainers sin
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Karl Berry wrote:
> I am against having separate install targets because GNU makefiles
> normally install everything by default and that is what users should
>
> No, they don't currently install any Texinfo output format except Info.
> And I don't see any particular re
Seems fine to me.
Ok, good. Thanks for the feedback. If no objections surface, that's
what I'll propose to rms.
I am against having separate install targets because GNU makefiles
normally install everything by default and that is what users should
No, they don't currently install a
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> I am against having separate install targets because GNU makefiles
> normally install everything by default and that is what users should
> expect. Installing everything is not a problem for distribution
> maintainers since they decide which files to package using their
>
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Karl Berry wrote:
>
> The obvious directory would be $(datadir)/html by analogy with
> $(datadir)/info, but it seems a bit arrogant to use such a generic name
> for something which only relates to Texinfo manuals. Maybe texinfo/html
> -- then we could have texinfo/xml/ and tex
Karl Berry wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
> The obvious directory would be $(datadir)/html by analogy with
> $(datadir)/info, but it seems a bit arrogant to use such a generic name
Not arrogant so much as conflicting with where folks might want to
stash their own stuff.
> for something which only relates
Hi folks,
Patrice Dumas and I have been working out a plan to make cross-manual
xrefs work in any Texinfo HTML output, so texi2html and makeinfo can
work together.
In order to make this most useful for people to browse manuals locally
(with file://localhost), it seems it might finally be time to
*Hospedaje Web desde $3.95 dlls
Paquetes de hospedaje web con las mejores características, con planes que se ajustan a
tus necesidades.
*Dominios desde $9.95 dlls
Registra, renueva, transfiere, date de alta como revendedor de dominios, tenemos las
herramientas que necesitas.
*Hospedaje Revend
23 matches
Mail list logo
