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 to
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
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 since they
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
gets
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
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
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
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 prefer a single
