bug#18428: coreutils binary breaks coreutils documentation

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 ' qu

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

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 +++ b/share/ma

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

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). > > Righ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 t

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

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 ac

bug#18428: coreutils binary breaks coreutils documentation

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

bug#18428: coreutils binary breaks coreutils documentation

Pádraig Brady wrote: > Andreas Schwab wrote: > > Bob Proulx writes: Not me! :-) It was Vincent Lefevre who wrote: > >> This is now incorrect (as of 8.23?), because it gives the page: > > > > "info touch" still works, which is equivalent to "info '(coreutils)touch > > invocation'". I was previ

bug#18428: coreutils binary breaks coreutils documentation

Andreas Schwab wrote: > Bob Proulx 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 'touc

bug#18428: coreutils binary breaks coreutils documentation

On 09/08/2014 08:30 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote: > On 09/08/2014 07:12 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote: >> Bob Proulx 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 install

bug#18428: coreutils binary breaks coreutils documentation

On 09/08/2014 07:12 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote: > Bob Proulx 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 >> >>

bug#18428: coreutils binary breaks coreutils documentation

Bob Proulx 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 give you a

bug#18428: coreutils binary breaks coreutils documentation

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 somethi