On Thu, 10 Nov 2022 at 16:58, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Am 10.11.2022 um 17:45 schrieb Georg-Johann Lay <a...@gjlay.de>: > > > > > > > >> Am 10.11.22 um 16:25 schrieb Jonathan Wakely: > >>> On Thu, 10 Nov 2022 at 15:23, Jonathan Wakely <jwak...@redhat.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Thu, 10 Nov 2022 at 15:17, Georg-Johann Lay <a...@gjlay.de> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Am 10.11.22 um 16:05 schrieb Martin Liška: > >>>>> On 11/10/22 15:45, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: > >>>>>> Hi, I just observed that links like > >>>>>> > >>>>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/install/configure.html > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ceased to work. Presumably this is to sphinx stuff, but it would be > >>>>>> great if not hundreds of links across the web to GCC pages like the > >>>>>> above would be 404. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I know that the new link is > >>>>>> > >>>>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/install/configuration.html > >>>>>> > >>>>>> but that doesn't help with existing pointers. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> "Deep" links like https://gcc.gnu.org/install/configuration.html#avr > >>>>>> > >>>>>> won't work either, so all reasonable anchors have been ditched, too? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Johann > >>>>> > >>>>> Hello. > >>>>> > >>>>> We're working on that and we'll create a redirection: > >>>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107610 > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks for pointing out. > >>>>> > >>>>> Martin > >>>> > >>>> Ok thanks, I left a note there. > >>> > >>> The second part of your note about deep links into the new docs is a > >>> completely separate issue. That can't be fixed with HTTP redirects for > >>> the old URLs. > >> And there are still anchors, they're just different: > >> https://gcc.gnu.org/install/configuration.html#cmdoption-with-avrlibc > >> Now there are anchors to every single option, which is much better > >> than it used to be. > > > > Yes, its nice. But existing links are still invalidated. Just take some > > tutorial that explains how to set up gcc, where you want to provide > > references that are point-on and not just "gcc.gnu.org". > > > > Does this also mean that "deep" links to onlinedocs won't work any more? > > How about moving the new docs to > onlinedocs-new/ and simply keeping the old > Doc tree around? Re-using the old dir looks like a mistake in hindsight?
Maybe just "docs" or "trunkdocs" or "latestdocs" instead of "onlinedocs-new", since that is (1) very long, and (2) will look silly in ten years when it's not new and we need to add onlinedocs-even-newer ;-) Or even onlinedocs/latest/ for the new stuff, and leave the old stuff there in onlinedocs/ (without linking to it) so that old links work.
