On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 05:54:18PM +0200, Gregory H. Nietsky wrote:
>
> There is something that is often overlooked that there are individuals
> who use the "book" as a reference to get the low down on a individual
> package.
> if these are users or simply experimenting
> with the package
> its
Le 26/02/2014 16:54, Gregory H. Nietsky a écrit :
> On 26/02/2014 11:29, Pierre Labastie wrote:
>> Maybe, when there is more time, we could start a related discussion
>> about having optional instructions in the book not distinct in any way
>> from mandatory ones. As you may remember, I use some ki
On 26/02/2014 11:29, Pierre Labastie wrote:
> Maybe, when there is more time, we could start a related discussion
> about having optional instructions in the book not distinct in any way
> from mandatory ones. As you may remember, I use some kind of automation
> for testing the book. If optional i
Le 26/02/2014 01:47, Randy McMurchy a écrit :
> On 2/25/2014 5:26 PM, Armin K. wrote:
>> On 25.2.2014 23:54, Randy McMurchy wrote:
>>> Though I strongly disagree with your decision to remove the docs,
>>> the more important part of your commit is removing the work done
>>> by another editor without
On 2/25/2014 5:26 PM, Armin K. wrote:
> On 25.2.2014 23:54, Randy McMurchy wrote:
>> Though I strongly disagree with your decision to remove the docs,
>> the more important part of your commit is removing the work done
>> by another editor without discussion. Another editor went to the
>> trouble o
On 25.2.2014 23:54, Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
> Though I strongly disagree with your decision to remove the docs,
> the more important part of your commit is removing the work done
> by another editor without discussion. Another editor went to the
> trouble of adding the instructions to build and ins
On 2/25/2014 2:20 PM, Pierre Labastie wrote:
> Rev 12783 has reverted what I had done for guile. I am curious why:
>
> I had suppressed instructions for building pdf docs (using texlive!), and
> simplified instructions to build and install html and txt doc, but had not
> changed anything else (I ha
Pierre Labastie wrote:
> Le 25/02/2014 21:36, Bruce Dubbs a écrit :
>> Pierre Labastie wrote:
>>> Rev 12783 has reverted what I had done for guile. I am curious why:
>>>
>>> I had suppressed instructions for building pdf docs (using texlive!), and
>>> simplified instructions to build and install ht
Le 25/02/2014 21:36, Bruce Dubbs a écrit :
> Pierre Labastie wrote:
>> Rev 12783 has reverted what I had done for guile. I am curious why:
>>
>> I had suppressed instructions for building pdf docs (using texlive!), and
>> simplified instructions to build and install html and txt doc, but had not
>>
Pierre Labastie wrote:
> Rev 12783 has reverted what I had done for guile. I am curious why:
>
> I had suppressed instructions for building pdf docs (using texlive!), and
> simplified instructions to build and install html and txt doc, but had not
> changed anything else (I had tested that with a D
Rev 12783 has reverted what I had done for guile. I am curious why:
I had suppressed instructions for building pdf docs (using texlive!), and
simplified instructions to build and install html and txt doc, but had not
changed anything else (I had tested that with a DESTDIR install). It is really
cu
11 matches
Mail list logo
