On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 10:50:07PM +0100, pertu...@free.fr wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 21, 2024 at 03:13:25PM -0700, Karl Berry wrote:
> > Hi Patrice,
> >
> > I understand the principle, but for me the lossage in practice is even
> > more unfortunate (by far). It sure seems to me that the "rare" case
> >
Patrice: sure, I understand.
Gavin: let me add one more point: if the warning is not reenabled by
default, you are essentially forcing every maintainer of every manual to
add a new flag to their makeinfo invocation, conditional on the makeinfo
version. This seems ... bad. --thanks, karl.
On Sun, Jan 21, 2024 at 03:13:25PM -0700, Karl Berry wrote:
> Hi Patrice,
>
> I understand the principle, but for me the lossage in practice is even
> more unfortunate (by far). It sure seems to me that the "rare" case
> should be the one to have to make the config file setting. Indeed, the
> very
Hi Patrice,
then they can set CHECK_NORMAL_MENU_STRUCTURE on
explicitely.
It's easy to say that, but it creates an incompatibility for the 99.99%
case. I can't set it for makeinfo 7.x without giving people using 6.x
(which is most everyone, downstream) a useless warning. Nor can I omit
i
On Sat, Jan 20, 2024 at 07:06:44PM +, Gavin Smith wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 20, 2024 at 06:45:06PM +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > > That reply pertained to the case of a missing menu entry. Your case
> > > is the opposite: a superfluous menu entry.
> >
> > To me, the manual with an entry leading
This goes against the practice of the vast majority of existing Texinfo
manuals, so this existing practice should be well supported.
Indeed. That is the crucial point. Those warnings are needed in well
over 99% of existing manuals, as far as I've seen :).
I think that it could be poss
On Sat, Jan 20, 2024 at 06:45:06PM +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > That reply pertained to the case of a missing menu entry. Your case
> > is the opposite: a superfluous menu entry.
>
> To me, the manual with an entry leading to a node that do not
> corresponds to the sectioning structure is perf
On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 10:16:06PM +, Gavin Smith wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 04:57:15PM -0700, Karl Berry wrote:
> > I believe this is an intentional feature in recent Texinfo versions.
> > To get the warnings back, you need to run makeinfo with the
> > command-line option "-c
> Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2024 16:30:33 -0700
> From: Karl Berry
>
> Hi Gavin,
>
> The problem as I remember it was that the error messages are awful:
>
> No argument, but having any message at all is infinitely better than
> silence. I urge you to restore them by default, suboptimal as they are.
Hi Gavin,
The problem as I remember it was that the error messages are awful:
No argument, but having any message at all is infinitely better than
silence. I urge you to restore them by default, suboptimal as they are.
It's true that those msgs as such have never made a great deal of sense
t
On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 04:57:15PM -0700, Karl Berry wrote:
> I believe this is an intentional feature in recent Texinfo versions.
> To get the warnings back, you need to run makeinfo with the
> command-line option "-c CHECK_NORMAL_MENU_STRUCTURE=1".
>
> Thanks for the hint. I reported
I believe this is an intentional feature in recent Texinfo versions.
To get the warnings back, you need to run makeinfo with the
command-line option "-c CHECK_NORMAL_MENU_STRUCTURE=1".
Thanks for the hint. I reported a similar thing in July 2023,
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/help
> Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2024 14:55:33 -0700
> From: Karl Berry
>
> I recently learned that some @menu vs. sectioning discrepancies in the
> automake manual were found with makeinfo 6.7, but not 7.1.
>
> In essence, I moved a subsection (Errors with distclean) from one
> section to another, but forg
13 matches
Mail list logo
