On 4 August 2015 at 16:44, Eli Zaretskii <e...@gnu.org> wrote:
>> Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 15:27:51 +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>
>>
>> Suppose there are two emacs installations, one as /usr/bin/emacs,
>> which is Emacs 23, and the other /usr/local/bin/emacs, which is Emacs
>> 24. Then there'd be /usr/share/info/{elisp.info,emacs.info},
>> describing Emacs 23, and
>> /usr/local/share/info/{elisp.info,emacs.info}, describing Emacs 24.
>
> 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.
> 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.
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.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
