[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl Berry) wrote: > > Maybe the better fix would be renaming all the nodes in coreutils.texi > to > > comply with this convention? > > I think the node names should stay as they are. The convention is > either "Invoking xxx" or "xxx invocation". > http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/Manual-Structure-Details.html
Hi Karl, > I originally named the nodes in the coreutils manual (well, it was the > three *utils at the time) using the latter so that completion would work > better. > > (Aside: a depressing number of GNU manuals don't follow either convention; > standalone info has a ton of special cases built into it. :() > > As for the original report: > >> | Emit "info coreutils 'PROG invocation'" into the man page, >> | rather than just "info PROG". The latter would often fail >> | or simply display the man page. > > I suppose it is more reliable to say "info coreutils 'PROG invocation'", > although it seems a shame to replace a simple command with a more complex one. Another reason to use the more verbose command is to ensure that info reliably displays the right node. Even with a proper installation, "info pr" doesn't display the desired node (as you probably recall). Instead, "info" simply displays the first node it finds with a name matching "pr". In my case, it is currently the "PreScript" node of a2ps.info. Without a2ps, it might be the coreutils "Printing text" node. There are a handful of other coreutils program names in the same boat. > What this report really says to me is that the dir file was not > correctly created by the Debian (or whatever) installation process. If Yes, that is the root of the problem. It came down to a dispute about which of two install-info programs should be installed. I'm amazed that it's lasted so long (it seems it's been at least two years, now). _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list Bug-coreutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
