> Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 19:55:41 +0100 > From: Gavin Smith <gavinsmith0...@gmail.com> > Cc: Karl Berry <k...@freefriends.org>, 793...@bugs.debian.org, > Texinfo <bug-texi...@gnu.org>, Rob Browning <r...@defaultvalue.org> > > > I'm saying that manuals that don't have any executables will be in > > trouble. If 'texinfo' and 'elisp' and 'org' do not worry you, think > > about 'standards.info' and its ilk. > > standards.info is likely under /usr/share/info, which would likely be > in INFOPATH anyway.
What if I have more than one version of it? > > In any case, it makes little sense to me to complicate the > > installation of binaries and their upgrade, and make your PATH longer, > > just to arrive at a solution we can already have -- separating just > > the manuals and having the corresponding directories on INFOPATH. > > You can extend INFOPATH without extending PATH. That's what I was saying. Which, to me, means the trick with INFOPATH=PATH is not the solution for the problem at hand, because an easier solution exists. > I don't have much more to say than what I said here: > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-texinfo/2015-07/msg00062.html, > about documentation for programs not in the PATH. I wasn't suggesting anything that would match this description. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
