Re: fix for source includes in gendoc.sh for future consideration

On 2024-01-28 13:59, Bruno Haible wrote: The backslashes at the end of a line are only a minor annoyance. Not being able to grasp the structure of a set of commands and pipes quickly — by looking at only the start of each line — is a major annoyance. Hmm, well, not everyone grasps the same way

Re: fix for source includes in gendoc.sh for future consideration

Paul Eggert wrote: > > the GNU > > standards favour listing the operators at the beginning of a line, not > > at the end. > > For shell scripts it's routine to put operators at the end; this avoids > unnecessary backslashes. The backslashes at the end of a line are only a minor an

Re: fix for source includes in gendoc.sh for future consideration

On 2024-01-28 10:06, Bruno Haible wrote: the GNU standards favour listing the operators at the beginning of a line, not at the end. For shell scripts it's routine to put operators at the end; this avoids unnecessary backslashes. Although sometimes it's better to put them at the begi

host-cpu-c-abi: Let gl_HOST_CPU_C_ABI_32BIT never return 'unknown'

Mohammad-Reza Nabipoor noticed that on Linux/m68k, when gl_HOST_CPU_C_ABI has already been invoked, gl_HOST_CPU_C_ABI_32BIT reports 'unknown' instead of the expected 'yes'. This disturbs GNU poke. This patch fixes it. 2024-01-28 Bruno Haible host-cpu-c-abi: Let gl_HOST_CPU_C_ABI_32BI

Re: fix for source includes in gendoc.sh for future consideration

On Sun, Jan 28, 2024 at 07:06:10PM +0100, Bruno Haible wrote: > Hi Patrice, > > > It may be strange to apply it now, before the Texinfo release, however. I > > can re-propose it after the Texinfo release, you tell me. > > It's unlikely that the --trace-includes features gets removed again before

Re: fix for source includes in gendoc.sh for future consideration

Hi Patrice, > It may be strange to apply it now, before the Texinfo release, however. I > can re-propose it after the Texinfo release, you tell me. It's unlikely that the --trace-includes features gets removed again before the texinfo 7.2 release, right? Then it's OK to commit a patch like this

Re: make-stds.texi manual feedback

Hi, David Apps wrote: > I believe that my feedback concerns text in the make-stds.texi file. As mentioned at the top of this file, it is included in both the GNU Make manual and the GNU Coding Standards. Therefore the right mailing list for reporting these is bug-standards

Re: fix for source includes in gendoc.sh for future consideration

On Sun, Jan 28, 2024 at 03:36:26PM +0100, Bruno Haible wrote: > Hi Patrice, > > Patrice Dumas wrote: > 2. Wait 10 years (or such), until no one uses the older versions > any more. Look at https://repology.org/project/texinfo/versions > to get a feeling when this time has come. There a

Re: fix for source includes in gendoc.sh for future consideration

Hi Patrice, Patrice Dumas wrote: > It seems to me that gendoc.sh is quite compatible with past versions of > Texinfo makeinfo. Therefore I think that this patch is not acceptable > as is, there need to be a way to determine that the makeinfo version is > good Yes, that's the approach we generall

make-stds.texi manual feedback

I hope that you are well. Thank you for your work on this great software and its documentation. I have some minor feedback about the document at the following address: http://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/make.html I believe that my feedback concerns text in the make-stds.texi file. Do no

fix for source includes in gendoc.sh for future consideration

Hello, Here is a patch for gendocs.sh to be considered in the future. It allows to get the @include of the manual being targetted by gendocs.sh and gather only the manual being targetted. It uses a feature that was just added to the development version of Texinfo, the addition of --trace-include