Vincent Lefevre reported to the Debian BTS that the new documentation
shipped for the recently added coreutils binary breaks the existing
documentation for all of the coreutils utilities.
https://bugs.debian.org/760861
Confirmed. Perhaps the documentation node name can be changed to be
Bob Proulx b...@proulx.com writes:
For instance, in the touch(1) man page:
The full documentation for touch is maintained as a Texinfo manual. If
the info and touch programs are properly installed at your site, the
command
info coreutils 'touch invocation'
should
On 09/08/2014 07:12 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Bob Proulx b...@proulx.com writes:
For instance, in the touch(1) man page:
The full documentation for touch is maintained as a Texinfo manual. If
the info and touch programs are properly installed at your site, the
command
On 09/08/2014 08:30 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
On 09/08/2014 07:12 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Bob Proulx b...@proulx.com writes:
For instance, in the touch(1) man page:
The full documentation for touch is maintained as a Texinfo manual. If
the info and touch programs are properly
Andreas Schwab wrote:
Bob Proulx b...@proulx.com writes:
For instance, in the touch(1) man page:
The full documentation for touch is maintained as a Texinfo manual. If
the info and touch programs are properly installed at your site, the
command
info coreutils
On 2014-09-08 18:10:35 -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
Note that IIRC originally the pointer was:
info touch
But that failed due to shortcomings in variously implemented
install-info commands that I don't remember now.
There were actually several (Debian-specific?) problems with this form.
On 09/09/2014 01:32 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2014-09-08 18:10:35 -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
Note that IIRC originally the pointer was:
info touch
But that failed due to shortcomings in variously implemented
install-info commands that I don't remember now.
There were actually several
Pádraig Brady wrote:
So we'll stick with the longer form
(which is likely to be cut n pasted in any case)
While this sounds like a win, I still like the idea of renaming the
troublesome info node, as there is a lot of advice out there to use the
old forms for 'info' and it's probably better
