Micah et al. - Just for an FYI - the whole texi->info, texi->html and (texi->rtf->hlp) is *very* fragile in the windows world. You actually have to download a *very* old version of makeinfo (1.68, not even on available on http://www.gnu.org/software/texinfo/) that supports RTF generation.
Any progress that we take to work on this should look at a new texi->hlp (or chm) process or abandon the HLP format completely. The HLP format is kind of nice since you don't get one large HTML file, and has searching etc. But I believe there are issues w/ HLP files on either x64 or Vista (can't recall off the top of my head). So if it has to go away, so be it. Christopher G. Lewis http://www.ChristopherLewis.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Micah Cowan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 1:16 PM > To: WGET@sunsite.dk > Subject: Man pages [Re: ignoring robots.txt] > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > Daniel Stenberg wrote: > > On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, Micah Cowan wrote: > > > >> The manpage doesn't need to give as detailed explanations > as the info > >> manual (though, as it's auto-generated from the info manual, this > >> could be hard to avoid); but it should fully describe > essential features. > > > > I know GNU projects for some reason go with info, but I'm > not in fan of > > that. > > > > Personally I always just use man pages and only revert to using info > > pages when forced. I simply don't like it when projects "hide" > > information in info pages. > > Well, the original intention, I think, is that the GNU > operating system > would use info as its primary documentation system, and avoid man > altogether. However, since in reality people just used GNU programs on > their own preexisting operating systems, which used nroff/man as their > primary documentation system, it was useful to provide man pages as > well. (AIUI.) > > Info is, IMO, a superior format to manpages (but only because that's > really not saying much). However, my fingers still type "man wget" > rather than "info wget" much more readily, for two reasons: > (1) because > only GNU programs tend to use Texinfo, whereas practically everything > (including GNU software) uses man pages, so it's far more > ubiquitous/habit-forming, and (2) I'm usually looking for a quick > reference, not an easy-reading manual: I'm pulling man up to type > "/something-or-other<RET>", which, for me, is easiest on an all-in-one > reference page, than in a separated-by-node info manual. > > However, when I'm actually looking to read up on a _subject_, rather > than an option or rc command, I'll use the Texinfo manual, > since that's > what it's better-suited for. > > Regardless of personal or group feelings about info, though, I pretty > much have to have documentation in Texinfo format, as it's expected of > GNU projects. However, Texinfo doesn't need to be the _source_ format; > and this discussion makes me toy with the prospect of switching to > DocBook XML. But I'm not sure I want to be rewriting the > manual at this > point. :p > > - -- > Micah J. Cowan > Programmer, musician, typesetting enthusiast, gamer... > http://micah.cowan.name/ > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFGn6ps7M8hyUobTrERCIn5AKCAAk0/4ThESmTO82CYlfye+cNaKQCfVbJI > c/w+nbC8zasi0gS1VNkkETs= > =ZkQE > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >
