Bug#760861: bug#18428: coreutils binary breaks coreutils documentation

On 09/08/2014 07:12 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote: > Bob Proulx writes: > >> For instance, in the touch(1) man page: >> >> The full documentation for touch is maintained as a Texinfo manual. If >> the info and touch programs are properly installed at your site, the >> command >> >>

Bug#760861: bug#18428: Bug#760861: bug#18428: Bug#760861: bug#18428: coreutils binary breaks coreutils documentation

Vincent Lefevre wrote: > Assaf Gordon wrote: > > BTW, > > "http://gnu.org/s/"; redirects to "http://www.gnu.org/software/"; , > > so > > http://gnu.org/s/coreutils/ls > > > > also works. > > But isn't it better to avoid a redirection (if possible)? I think it is better to use the canonical fo

Bug#760861: bug#18428: Bug#760861: bug#18428: Bug#760861: bug#18428: coreutils binary breaks coreutils documentation

On 2014-09-09 12:58:14 -0400, Assaf Gordon wrote: > BTW, > "http://gnu.org/s/"; redirects to "http://www.gnu.org/software/"; , > so > http://gnu.org/s/coreutils/ls > > also works. But isn't it better to avoid a redirection (if possible)? -- Vincent Lefèvre - Web: 1

Bug#760861: bug#18428: Bug#760861: bug#18428: Bug#760861: bug#18428: coreutils binary breaks coreutils documentation

On 09/09/2014 10:52 AM, Michael Stone wrote: On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 03:31:35PM +0100, Pádraig Brady wrote: It's useful to many, but I agree most don't bother with it due to the awkward non intuitive default info reader _interface_ (though pinfo is a bit better in that regard). Right. I've hea

Bug#760861: bug#18428: Bug#760861: bug#18428: coreutils binary breaks coreutils documentation

On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 03:31:35PM +0100, Pádraig Brady wrote: It's useful to many, but I agree most don't bother with it due to the awkward non intuitive default info reader _interface_ (though pinfo is a bit better in that regard). Right. I've heard the argument for 15 years that info docs ar

Bug#760861: bug#18428: Bug#760861: bug#18428: coreutils binary breaks coreutils documentation

On 09/09/2014 01:51 PM, Michael Stone wrote: > On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 06:10:35PM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote: >> But I think in recent years the install-info problems have been fixed. >> Perhaps we don't need to do any of this anymore? Or perhaps finally >> getting to the canonical (FILENAME)NODE-WIT

Bug#760861: bug#18428: coreutils binary breaks coreutils documentation

On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 06:10:35PM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote: But I think in recent years the install-info problems have been fixed. Perhaps we don't need to do any of this anymore? Or perhaps finally getting to the canonical (FILENAME)NODE-WITHIN-FILE form we have finally arrived at the end and s

Bug#760861: bug#18428: Bug#760861: bug#18428: coreutils binary breaks coreutils documentation

Pádraig Brady wrote: So we'll stick with the longer form (which is likely to be cut n pasted in any case) While this sounds like a win, I still like the idea of renaming the troublesome info node, as there is a lot of advice out there to use the old forms for 'info' and it's probably better t

Bug#760861: bug#18428: coreutils binary breaks coreutils documentation

On 09/09/2014 01:32 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2014-09-08 18:10:35 -0600, Bob Proulx wrote: >> Note that IIRC originally the pointer was: >> >> info touch >> >> But that failed due to shortcomings in variously implemented >> install-info commands that I don't remember now. > > There were ac

Bug#760861: bug#18428: coreutils binary breaks coreutils documentation

On 2014-09-08 18:10:35 -0600, Bob Proulx wrote: > Note that IIRC originally the pointer was: > > info touch > > But that failed due to shortcomings in variously implemented > install-info commands that I don't remember now. There were actually several (Debian-specific?) problems with this form

Bug#760861: bug#18428: coreutils binary breaks coreutils documentation

Pádraig Brady wrote: > Andreas Schwab wrote: > > Bob Proulx writes: Not me! :-) It was Vincent Lefevre who wrote: > >> This is now incorrect (as of 8.23?), because it gives the page: > > > > "info touch" still works, which is equivalent to "info '(coreutils)touch > > invocation'". I was previ

Bug#760861: bug#18428: coreutils binary breaks coreutils documentation

On 09/08/2014 08:30 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote: > On 09/08/2014 07:12 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote: >> Bob Proulx writes: >> >>> For instance, in the touch(1) man page: >>> >>> The full documentation for touch is maintained as a Texinfo manual. If >>> the info and touch programs are properly install