Hello, On Tue, 1 Jun 2021, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 5/31/21 5:49 PM, Michael Matz wrote: > > Hello Martin, > > > > On Mon, 31 May 2021, Martin Liška wrote: > > > >> I've made quite some progress with the porting of the documentation and > >> I would like to present it to the community now: > >> https://splichal.eu/scripts/sphinx/ > >> Note the documentation is automatically ([1]) generated from texinfo with > >> a > >> GitHub workflow ([2]). > > > > One other thing I was recently thinking about, in the Spinx vs. texinfo > > discussion: locally available documentation browsable/searchable in > > terminal with info(1) (or equivalents). > > Yes, that's handy. > > > I think the above (i.e. generating .rst from the texinfo file) would > > immediately nullify all my worries. So, just to be extra sure: your > > proposal now is to generate the .rst files, and that .texinfo remains > > the maintained sources, right? > > No, .texinfo files will be gone. However, Sphinx can output to info > format: > https://www.sphinx-doc.org/en/master/man/sphinx-build.html#cmdoption-sphinx-build-M I see, that's good to hear. > And I've just added the generated Info pages here: > https://splichal.eu/scripts/sphinx/ Okay, but there's something amiss, just compare a local gcc.info with that. The sphinx generated one seems to only contain command line options, but none of the other topics, in particular it seems to contain the "Invoking GCC" chapter (and only that) as top-level, and all other ones are missing (like "C implementation", "C++ implementation", "C extension", and so on). Looking at gccint.info I also seem quite some confusion, it's unclear to me if content is missing or not. But e.g. the top-level structure has a different order (a less logical one, this one is btw. shared with the order of the HTML generated docu, so it's probably specific to sphinx setup or such). Ignoring that missing content what is there right now does seem somewhat acceptable for local use, though. Ciao, Michael.
