Re: are downlevel manuals goodness?
Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 04:58:55PM -0400, Greg Ames wrote: > > If I'm reading the Makefile correctly, current HEAD no longer updates the > > manual/ directory if it exists, unlike 1.3. What good is a downlevel manual? > > Yeah, that looks bogus. I'd move the copying of the manual to > install-man and copy it unconditionally. -- justin That looks like a good fit - commit coming shortly. Greg
Re: are downlevel manuals goodness?
On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 11:11:48PM +0100, James Cox wrote: > kick me if i got this wrong, but manual was always copied into > @@INSTDIR@@/html/manual right? Nah, we switched it to go to $(prefix)/manual by default. It's not in the htdocs dir now. -- justin
RE: are downlevel manuals goodness?
> > On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 04:58:55PM -0400, Greg Ames wrote: > > If I'm reading the Makefile correctly, current HEAD no longer > updates the > > manual/ directory if it exists, unlike 1.3. What good is a > downlevel manual? > > Yeah, that looks bogus. I'd move the copying of the manual to > install-man and copy it unconditionally. -- justin > kick me if i got this wrong, but manual was always copied into @@INSTDIR@@/html/manual right? that particularly sucked (i nuked html as one of the first things i did on install, so as not to confuse anything). what about sticking it into /usr/local/share or similar? and then having a built in link, such as server-status ? reason being, again, it'd be nice to make the INSTDIR cleaner. :) -- james
Re: are downlevel manuals goodness?
On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 04:58:55PM -0400, Greg Ames wrote: > If I'm reading the Makefile correctly, current HEAD no longer updates the > manual/ directory if it exists, unlike 1.3. What good is a downlevel manual? Yeah, that looks bogus. I'd move the copying of the manual to install-man and copy it unconditionally. -- justin