Re: Automake manual

Hello Bobby, * Bobby Jack wrote on Sat, Oct 28, 2006 at 12:16:49AM CEST: > Please accept my apologies if this is not the best > email address for this question. It's just right. Thanks for reporting this! > Shouldn't the line [...] > "This file is read by both autoconf (to create > configure.a

Bug in automake manual

Hello, I have been reading http://www.gnu.org/software/automake/manual/html_mono/automake.html and saw links through to "GNU Makefile Standards Document (see Makefile Conventions)", where "Makefile Conventions" is a link to http://www.gnu.o

Re: Bug in automake manual

Hello Bob, Thanks for the report. * Bob Wilkinson wrote on Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 07:12:03PM CET: > > I have been reading > http://www.gnu.org/software/automake/manual/html_mono/automake.html You should instead be reading <http://sources.redhat.com/automake/automake.ht

automake manual error page 14 % not $

|Hello, |that's not much but and it might had already been noticed. If not, page 14 in |the autoconf manual, you might change : | |autoconf -t 'AC_DEFINE:@: $@ |*: $* |%: $%' | |instead of | |autoconf -t 'AC_DEFINE:@: $@ |*: $* |$: $%' | | |Regards, | |

Nano-typo in the automake manual

Here is a trivial patch to fix a nano-typo, scr vs. src. ===File ~/automake-scrdir-typo.diff= 2006-10-14 Alfred M. Szmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * doc/automake.texi (Third-Party Makefiles): Fix typo. --- doc/automake.texi 28 Aug 2006 18:04:24 +0200 1.150 +++

Re: Logic-o in automake manual

Hello Reuben, * Reuben Thomas wrote on Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 12:50:45PM CET: > You mean "appear newer", not "appear older", as "configure.ac" is > lexically after "configure". If configure.ac "appeared older" than > configure, then configure would not be rebuilt, spuriously or otherwise. > > By t

sections without nodes in automake manual?

I noticed automake.texi has many sectioning commands without nodes. Mostly but not entirely @subsub-level entries. This is quite unusual. It leads to some very long nodes. Was it a deliberate decision? In cases like Install and Dist, I even venture to say that it is a bug. Anyway, if it is del

Re: automake manual error page 14 % not $

7; > | > |instead of > | > |autoconf -t 'AC_DEFINE:@: $@ > |*: $* > |$: $%' > | Thanks for reporting this. Since it's the Autoconf manual and not the Automake manual, the right mailing list would have been bug-autoconf instead. ;-) Proposed patch below.

Re: Nano-typo in the automake manual

Hello Alfred, * Alfred M. Szmidt wrote on Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 06:59:17PM CEST: > Here is a trivial patch to fix a nano-typo, scr vs. src. Thanks. I've applied this. I added the `tiny change' because I don't know if PACKAGING as an entry in the copyright list has anything to do with the Autotoo

Re: sections without nodes in automake manual?

Hi Karl, * Karl Berry wrote on Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 07:26:20PM CEST: > I noticed automake.texi has many sectioning commands without nodes. > Mostly but not entirely @subsub-level entries. > > This is quite unusual. It leads to some very long nodes. Was it a > deliberate decision? I have no ide

Re: sections without nodes in automake manual?

AIUI, the subsubheadings do not cause entries in the contents of the PDF file. I'm not sure I think that's better, though. Are there other differences I overlooked? Not in terms of formatting, but in terms of theory and how Texinfo is typically used -- @section and the like should al

Re: sections without nodes in automake manual?

Hi Karl, it took me the better part of a year to find enough energy to attack . * Karl Berry wrote on Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 11:32:47PM CEST: > AIUI, the subsubheadings do not cause entries in the contents of the > PDF file. I

Re: sections without nodes in automake manual?

I'm not sure I like info files where each 5-line subsubsection is a separate node Sure. Splitting/lumping is always a judgement call. +* SUBDIRS vs DIST_SUBDIRS:: Two sets of directories Probably a period after "vs", to match the @subsection name (and because this manual is (pri

Re: sections without nodes in automake manual?

Hi Karl, thanks for the quick review! * Karl Berry wrote on Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 11:26:24PM CET: > > +* SUBDIRS vs DIST_SUBDIRS:: Two sets of directories > > Probably a period after "vs", to match the @subsection name (and because > this manual is (primarily?) in American English rather

Re: sections without nodes in automake manual?

* Unfortunately, you cannot use periods, commas, colons or parentheses within a node name; these confuse the Texinfo processors. Perhaps this limitation will be removed some day, too. Oh yeah :). Well, the situation is that in practice, periods only cause trouble in unus

Re: sections without nodes in automake manual?

Hi Karl, * Karl Berry wrote on Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 11:25:26PM CET: >* Unfortunately, you cannot use periods, commas, colons or > parentheses within a node name; these confuse the Texinfo > processors. Perhaps this limitation will be removed some day, too. > > Oh yeah :

[NITPICKING] Automake manual: missing release stats for 1.10.3 and 1.11.1

Hello automakers. The automake manual, as build from latest git *master branch*, misses release stats for the bugfix-releases 1.10.3 and 1.11.1 (see chapter 28 "History", section 3 "Release Statistics"). Is this intentional, or the result of an oversight? P.S. The online

bug#10371: Broken links in the on-line automake manual

Feeding the address of the on-line automake manual: <http://www.gnu.org/software/automake/manual/automake.html> to the W3C linkchecker: <http://validator.w3.org/checklink> I've found the following *broken links*: <http://www.gnu.org/software/automake/manu

bug#10371: Broken links in the on-line automake manual

Hi Stefano and all -- back on your report about broken urls from 2011 :) -- Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 22:03:50 +0100 Feeding the address of the on-line automake manual: <http://www.gnu.org/software/automake/manual/automake.html> to the W3C linkchecker: <http://val

bug#10371: Broken links in the on-line automake manual

The attached patch.gz fixes the urls in automake.texi, adds checklinkx to the contrib/ subdirectory, and a new target in doc/local.mk to invoke it for rechecking. Hearing no objection, I pushed this change (last night, belatedly sending this mail, sorry) and am closing this bug. -k

Re: [NITPICKING] Automake manual: missing release stats for 1.10.3 and 1.11.1

Hi Stefano, * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 06:47:54PM CEST: > The automake manual, as build from latest git *master branch*, misses > release stats for the bugfix-releases 1.10.3 and 1.11.1 (see chapter 28 > "History", section 3 "Release Statistics&quo

Re: [NITPICKING] Automake manual: missing release stats for 1.10.3 and 1.11.1

At Tuesday 08 June 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > I tend to update them lazily, i.e., shortly before a release is > made from the branch. Ah, ok, Thanks for the information. Regards, Stefano

bug#20987: Replacing "15 Support for test suites" in the Automake manual

basis for understanding the material to follow. It is understood that several sections in the introduction would be best presented as a general introduction. However, Automake does not provide any insight into these issues and any addressing of them in the Automake manual is scatter shot. You are

bug#54363: [PATCH] doc: refer to automake manual in all man pages

Fixes automake bug https://bugs.gnu.org/54363. There is no "aclocal" manual as it's all integrated into the automake manual, so have all the help2man calls force automake as the manual. * doc/local.mk: Use --info-page=automake for man pages. --- doc/local.mk | 2 +- 1 file chang

bug#20987: Replacing "15 Support for test suites" in the Automake manual

Hello. Thank you for the great amount of work you put into the document. You explain a lot of things in great detail on those 63 pages. Really impressive. I haven't read every single word in the document, I've just browsed it, but I've found some issues which would need to be addressed: 1)

bug#7654: docs: is LTLIBRARIES missing from the list of primaries in the automake manual?

The subjects says it all, basically. In section "3.3 The Uniform Naming Scheme" I read: ``The current primary names are ‘PROGRAMS’, ‘LIBRARIES’, ‘LISP’, ‘PYTHON’, ‘JAVA’, ‘SCRIPTS’, ‘DATA’, ‘HEADERS’, ‘MANS’, and ‘TEXINFOS’. Some primaries also allow additional prefixes that control oth

bug#7654: docs: is LTLIBRARIES missing from the list of primaries in the automake manual?

* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 06:40:37PM CET: > In section "3.3 The Uniform Naming Scheme" I read: > > ``The current primary names are ‘PROGRAMS’, ‘LIBRARIES’, ‘LISP’, >‘PYTHON’, ‘JAVA’, ‘SCRIPTS’, ‘DATA’, ‘HEADERS’, ‘MANS’, and >‘TEXINFOS’. Some primaries also allow a