> Attempting to build from CVS, without texinfo installed, or with
> texinfo version < 4.8, causes make to abort at the point where the
> info files should be compiled. Immediately typing `make' again
> resumes the build, which apparently completes successfully, but
> leaves corrupt info files in
Larry Kollar wrote:
> Now I don't blame you for balking; autoconf is a hideous beast
> & I don't like to poke around in there either. :-)
Oh, I wouldn't go that far. Autoconf isn't so bad, once you get
used to it -- much easier than trying to write a configure script
by hand, without tripping ove
Keith Marshall wrote:
On Wednesday 26 October 2005 9:28 pm, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
Am I missing something? For building the info files you need the
`texinfo' package but no TeX, and this is a developer's
prerequisite I
won't drop.
Attempting to build from CVS, without texinfo installed,
On Wednesday 26 October 2005 9:28 pm, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> Am I missing something? For building the info files you need the
> `texinfo' package but no TeX, and this is a developer's prerequisite I
> won't drop.
Attempting to build from CVS, without texinfo installed, or with texinfo
version <
> Would it be difficult to add a --without-texinfo configure option,
> or even check for the right version of texinfo during the configure
> phase? To me, that seems to be the best of both worlds; build the
> PDF when you can, and skip it (without aborting make) when you
> can't.
I don't see a re
Werner LEMBERG wrote:
Second, quite apart from the ideological objections to texinfo and
criticisms of the format itself, my real problem is that texinfo is
a prerequisite for building the CVS groff, and that a TeX
installation is required for building a pdf of the main
documentation. [...]
W
The GNU project has tried for years to kill man pages (with little
success) by ignoring them. I'm not proposing that texinfo get ignored,
I'm suggesting that there is at least one person out here (me) who would
do some real work on roff's docs if the format was roff. From what I
ca
> First, we should all acknowledge that groff's info files are among
> the best of any open-source project (again, there's some irony
> here); [..]
too much honour...
> any alternative documentation project undertaken by members of this
> list should strive to incorporate all of the exhaustive
>
On Oct 24, 2005, at 9:46 AM, Larry McVoy wrote:
On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 08:36:43AM -0600, D. E. Evans wrote:
Perhaps only rms, and a couple of others actually use 'GNU OS,'
but those who do, use info. I wouldn't say they it is right to
call all GNU OS users, developers.
This sounds like
On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 08:36:43AM -0600, D. E. Evans wrote:
>> Perhaps only rms, and a couple of others actually use 'GNU OS,'
>> but those who do, use info. I wouldn't say they it is right to
>> call all GNU OS users, developers.
>
>This sounds like you are basing your arguments
> Perhaps only rms, and a couple of others actually use 'GNU OS,'
> but those who do, use info. I wouldn't say they it is right to
> call all GNU OS users, developers.
This sounds like you are basing your arguments on people who use a
100% pure GNU system. If that's the case, that
Having info as the only default is an unfortunate decision IMHO. It
makes sense for big projects, but otherwise this guideline should be
ignored, or rather, the man page should have priority.
I don't remember the details, but I seem to remember Stallman's
reasoning was Donald Knuth's inv
> So again, a *GNU* user will be looking to info everytime, not a
> man page. As a BSD user, I would look to a man page everytime,
> since man is the default for BSD (as for any other UNIX platform).
> The irony of groff as a GNU project is not lost on me.
I'm sorry, but I can't he
13 matches
Mail list logo
