[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: cvs.texinfo updates? add/remove (newer patch)

From: Mark D. Baushke
Subject: Re: cvs.texinfo updates? add/remove (newer patch)
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 01:46:31 -0700

Hash: SHA1

Kevin R. Bulgrien <kbulgrien@worldnet.att.net> writes:

> > makeinfo 4.8 does not like your patch.
> > 
> > % make cvs.info
> > cvs.texinfo:11721: `remove' has no Up field (perhaps incorrect sectioning?).
> > cvs.texinfo:9023: `add' has no Up field (perhaps incorrect sectioning?).
> > makeinfo: Removing output file `cvs.info' due to errors; use --force to 
> > preserve.
> > %
> > 
> > So, you still have a bit of work to do before your patch may be used.
> This patch supercedes the patch previously submitted, and may also be
> freely distributed.
> I  have incorporated Mark's suggestions.  make appears to build without
> errors,  but I am still not quite sure how to properly make the workspace
> clean so that make does its job.  make clean does not clean up cvs.1.

If you are in --enable-maintainer-mode and the datestamp for cvs.1 is
older than the datestamp for cvs.texinfo, the cvs.1 file should be rebuilt
with a 'make cvs.1' command if you are in the doc directory.

I wonder about the 'Add files' menu summary line when directories may
also be added. Possibly 'Add files/directories' would be better? I
suppose an alternative might be to have a separate reference for adding
directories. Comments anyone?

Also, there is an '@node Adding files' section which may want to
reference your new node (or vice versa?) Likewise for
'@node Removing files' ... Of course, I have not yet had time to
look closely at the total flow of the manual with the new sections.

> make maintainer-clean does, but also forces me to re-run ./configure.
> Nonetheless, I believe I have corrected the problems that existed with
> the other patch.

It should not be necessary to do a 'make maintainer-clean' although that
is indeed the only way to have 'make' itself remove the cvs.1 file.

You are correct that your patch no longer gives makeinfo heartburn.
Thanks for making that change.

> Also, I note an oddity in the man page that pre-dates my edits.  Various
> command options carry this note:
>          Note that this is not the standard  behavior  of  the  -f  option  as
>          defined in see node `Common options' in the CVS manual.
> The phrase "defined in see node" is awkward.  The textinfo manual says
> that @ref{} does not generate the word "see" in printed documentation,
> but apparently this does not include the info/man page documentation.
> The source that generates this is:
>       @table @code
>       @item -f
>       Note that this is not the standard behavior of
>       the @samp{-f} option as defined in @ref{Common options}.
> I do not know how to correct this, but, again, this is present in various
> other locations in the man page.

Yes, it is. I agree this is a problem. I am also uncertain how to make
it cleaner.

        -- Mark
Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (FreeBSD)


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]