> Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 15:16:45 +0100 > From: Gavin Smith <gavinsmith0...@gmail.com> > Cc: Rob Browning <r...@defaultvalue.org>, 793...@bugs.debian.org, > Texinfo <bug-texi...@gnu.org> > > On 4 August 2015 at 14:34, Eli Zaretskii <e...@gnu.org> wrote: > >> It would still be better than what we have at the moment, though. > > > > In what way would it be better? I don't see any significant > > improvement, just the added complexity. > > You could easily install and access multiple versions of manuals > side-by-side, by configuring with --program-suffix. Taking the example > of Texinfo, you could access different versions of the Texinfo manual > with "info texinfo-5.0", "info texinfo-4.13", etc.
Users can already have that, by placing each version in its own directory and adding that directory to INFOPATH. How is this better or even significantly different? > What would fail would be cross-references to, for example, > "info-stnd": if the current file was texinfo-5.0.info, this wouldn't > necessarily give you "info-stnd-5.0.info", but whatever > "info-stnd.info" was. In the case of the Texinfo manuals, I don't > think that's a huge inconvenience, and in fact might be the desired > behaviour (as "info-stnd.info" would likely be the file describing > the version of "info" that the shell would find). It might be the desired behavior, but then it might not. It's confusing to get a manual other than the one the author of the cross-reference intended. It could even fail, if the cross-referenced node doesn't exist in one of the versions. I don't think we should promote a semi-broken solution to this problem. I think we should look for a complete solution. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
