bug#18436: Error building 8.23 with builddir != srcdir and --disable-dependency-tracking

2014-09-09 Thread Daniel Richard G.
I normally build with --disable-dependency-tracking to speed up builds, and also build out-of-tree, and got this with the latest coreutils: $ cd /foo/bar/coreutils-8.23 $ mkdir _build $ cd _build $ ../configure --disable-dependency-tracking checking for a BSD-compatible install

bug#18428: Bug#760861: bug#18428: Bug#760861: bug#18428: Bug#760861: bug#18428: coreutils binary breaks coreutils documentation

2014-09-09 Thread Bob Proulx
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 fo

bug#18428: Bug#760861: bug#18428: Bug#760861: bug#18428: Bug#760861: bug#18428: coreutils binary breaks coreutils documentation

2014-09-09 Thread Vincent Lefevre
On 2014-09-09 12:58:14 -0400, 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)? -- Vincent Lefèvre - Web: 1

bug#18428: Bug#760861: bug#18428: Bug#760861: bug#18428: coreutils binary breaks coreutils documentation

2014-09-09 Thread Pádraig Brady
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_ >>> (thoug

bug#18428: Bug#760861: bug#18428: Bug#760861: bug#18428: coreutils binary breaks coreutils documentation

2014-09-09 Thread Assaf Gordon
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 hea

bug#18428: Bug#760861: bug#18428: Bug#760861: bug#18428: coreutils binary breaks coreutils documentation

2014-09-09 Thread Michael Stone
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 heard the argument for 15 years that info docs ar

bug#18428: Bug#760861: bug#18428: coreutils binary breaks coreutils documentation

2014-09-09 Thread Pádraig Brady
On 09/09/2014 01:51 PM, Michael Stone wrote: > On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 06:10:35PM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote: >> But I think in recent years the install-info problems have been fixed. >> Perhaps we don't need to do any of this anymore? Or perhaps finally >> getting to the canonical (FILENAME)NODE-WIT

bug#18428: Bug#760861: bug#18428: coreutils binary breaks coreutils documentation

2014-09-09 Thread Michael Stone
On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 06:10:35PM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote: But I think in recent years the install-info problems have been fixed. Perhaps we don't need to do any of this anymore? Or perhaps finally getting to the canonical (FILENAME)NODE-WITHIN-FILE form we have finally arrived at the end and s

bug#18428: Bug#760861: bug#18428: coreutils binary breaks coreutils documentation

2014-09-09 Thread Pádraig Brady
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 als