On 09/11/2014 02:31 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] doc: adjust reference to info nodes in man pages
...
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] doc: reference online info pages directly from man pages
The result of both patches looks almost good:
--- a/share/man/man1/basename.1
+++
On 09/11/2014 09:54 AM, Bernhard Voelker wrote:
+or available locally via: info '(coreutils) basename invocation'
^___^
I think we need the \aq instead of ' here, don't we?
Good catch!
Interestingly it renders as a standard ' quote
On 09/09/2014 03:52 PM, Michael Stone wrote:
On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 03:31:35PM +0100, Pádraig Brady wrote:
It's useful to many, but I agree most don't bother with it
due to the awkward non intuitive default info reader _interface_
(though pinfo is a bit better in that regard).
Right. I've
On 09/09/2014 04:55 AM, Paul Eggert wrote:
Subject: [PATCH 1/4] doc: mention which commands are optional
I was thinking that the bst way to do that would be to adjust things
so that the node wasn't installed if the command wasn't. But it's better
to have this info generally available online
On 09/09/2014 10:52 AM, Michael Stone wrote:
On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 03:31:35PM +0100, Pádraig Brady wrote:
It's useful to many, but I agree most don't bother with it
due to the awkward non intuitive default info reader _interface_
(though pinfo is a bit better in that regard).
Right. I've
On 09/09/2014 05:58 PM, Assaf Gordon wrote:
On 09/09/2014 10:52 AM, Michael Stone wrote:
On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 03:31:35PM +0100, Pádraig Brady wrote:
It's useful to many, but I agree most don't bother with it
due to the awkward non intuitive default info reader _interface_
(though pinfo is
Vincent Lefevre wrote:
Assaf Gordon wrote:
BTW,
http://gnu.org/s/; redirects to http://www.gnu.org/software/; ,
so
http://gnu.org/s/coreutils/ls
also works.
But isn't it better to avoid a redirection (if possible)?
I think it is better to use the canonical form. This will be
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
15 matches
Mail list logo
