From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
To: Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com>
Cc: binutils@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] Simplify @node use in BFD documentation
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2023 09:20:15 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8392b8ac-2447-2721-706b-aae4c3021404@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230208071725.3668898-3-tom@tromey.com>
On 08.02.2023 08:17, Tom Tromey wrote:
> The BFD docs currently specify all the parameters to @node. However,
> this results in bad navigation in certain nodes -- the "space" command
> in info doesn't know how to find the next node.
>
> I think this style of @node is a leftover from ancient times.
> Makeinfo can figure out the node structure on its own now, so simplify
> everything to a single-argument @node.
>
> 2023-02-07 Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com>
>
> * doc/webassembly.texi (File layout): Remove second argument from
> @node.
> * doc/bfd.texi: Use single-argument @node everywhere.
> ---
> bfd/ChangeLog | 6 +++++
> bfd/doc/bfd.texi | 56 ++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
> bfd/doc/webassembly.texi | 2 +-
> 3 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
Does this change need to be accompanied by an update to configure, to
build BFD doc only with new enough makeinfo? This is what I get with
4.12 (admittedly old, but apparently deemed acceptable right now):
.../bfd/doc/bfd.texi:245: Node `Sections' requires a sectioning command (e.g., @unnumberedsubsec).
.../bfd/doc/bfd.texi:248: Node `Symbols' requires a sectioning command (e.g., @unnumberedsubsubsec).
.../bfd/doc/bfd.texi:251: Node `Archives' requires a sectioning command (e.g., @unnumberedsubsubsec).
.../bfd/doc/bfd.texi:254: Node `Formats' requires a sectioning command (e.g., @unnumberedsubsubsec).
.../bfd/doc/bfd.texi:257: Node `Relocations' requires a sectioning command (e.g., @unnumberedsubsubsec).
.../bfd/doc/bfd.texi:260: Node `Core Files' requires a sectioning command (e.g., @unnumberedsubsubsec).
.../bfd/doc/bfd.texi:263: Node `Targets' requires a sectioning command (e.g., @unnumberedsubsubsec).
.../bfd/doc/bfd.texi:266: Node `Architectures' requires a sectioning command (e.g., @unnumberedsubsubsec).
.../bfd/doc/bfd.texi:269: Node `Opening and Closing' requires a sectioning command (e.g., @unnumberedsubsubsec).
.../bfd/doc/bfd.texi:272: Node `Internal' requires a sectioning command (e.g., @unnumberedsubsubsec).
.../bfd/doc/bfd.texi:275: Node `File Caching' requires a sectioning command (e.g., @unnumberedsubsubsec).
.../bfd/doc/bfd.texi:278: Node `Linker Functions' requires a sectioning command (e.g., @unnumberedsubsubsec).
.../bfd/doc/bfd.texi:281: Node `Hash Tables' requires a sectioning command (e.g., @top).
.../bfd/doc/bfd.texi:300: Node `aout' requires a sectioning command (e.g., @unnumberedsubsec).
.../bfd/doc/bfd.texi:303: Node `coff' requires a sectioning command (e.g., @unnumberedsubsec).
.../bfd/doc/bfd.texi:306: Node `elf' requires a sectioning command (e.g., @unnumberedsubsec).
.../bfd/doc/bfd.texi:311: Node `mmo' requires a sectioning command (e.g., @unnumberedsubsec).
.../bfd/doc/bfd.texi:314: Node `GNU Free Documentation License' requires a sectioning command (e.g., @unnumberedsubsubsec).
.../bfd/doc/bfd.texi:317: `BFD Index' has no Up field (perhaps incorrect sectioning?).
.../bfd/doc/bfd.texi:314: `GNU Free Documentation License' has no Up field (perhaps incorrect sectioning?).
.../bfd/doc/bfd.texi:311: `mmo' has no Up field (perhaps incorrect sectioning?).
.../bfd/doc/bfd.texi:306: `elf' has no Up field (perhaps incorrect sectioning?).
.../bfd/doc/bfd.texi:303: `coff' has no Up field (perhaps incorrect sectioning?).
.../bfd/doc/bfd.texi:300: `aout' has no Up field (perhaps incorrect sectioning?).
.../bfd/doc/bfd.texi:296: Next field of node `What to Put Where' not pointed to (perhaps incorrect sectioning?).
.../bfd/doc/bfd.texi:300: This node (aout) has the bad Prev.
.../bfd/doc/bfd.texi:284: `BFD back ends' has no Up field (perhaps incorrect sectioning?).
.../bfd/doc/bfd.texi:281: `Hash Tables' has no Up field (perhaps incorrect sectioning?).
.../bfd/doc/bfd.texi:278: `Linker Functions' has no Up field (perhaps incorrect sectioning?).
.../bfd/doc/bfd.texi:275: `File Caching' has no Up field (perhaps incorrect sectioning?).
.../bfd/doc/bfd.texi:272: `Internal' has no Up field (perhaps incorrect sectioning?).
.../bfd/doc/bfd.texi:269: `Opening and Closing' has no Up field (perhaps incorrect sectioning?).
.../bfd/doc/bfd.texi:266: `Architectures' has no Up field (perhaps incorrect sectioning?).
.../bfd/doc/bfd.texi:263: `Targets' has no Up field (perhaps incorrect sectioning?).
.../bfd/doc/bfd.texi:260: `Core Files' has no Up field (perhaps incorrect sectioning?).
.../bfd/doc/bfd.texi:257: `Relocations' has no Up field (perhaps incorrect sectioning?).
.../bfd/doc/bfd.texi:254: `Formats' has no Up field (perhaps incorrect sectioning?).
.../bfd/doc/bfd.texi:251: `Archives' has no Up field (perhaps incorrect sectioning?).
.../bfd/doc/bfd.texi:248: `Symbols' has no Up field (perhaps incorrect sectioning?).
.../bfd/doc/bfd.texi:245: `Sections' has no Up field (perhaps incorrect sectioning?).
.../bfd/doc/bfd.texi:222: Next field of node `Memory Usage' not pointed to (perhaps incorrect sectioning?).
.../bfd/doc/bfd.texi:245: This node (Sections) has the bad Prev.
.../bfd/doc/bfd.texi:195: `BFD front end' has no Up field (perhaps incorrect sectioning?).
.../bfd/doc/bfd.texi:91: `Overview' has no Up field (perhaps incorrect sectioning?).
.../bfd/doc/bfd.texi:78: Next field of node `Top' not pointed to (perhaps incorrect sectioning?).
.../bfd/doc/bfd.texi:91: This node (Overview) has the bad Prev.
I have no insight yet what else in the series may cause further issues.
Jan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-03-03 8:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-02-08 7:17 [PATCH 0/8] Make the BFD info manual a bit prettier Tom Tromey
2023-02-08 7:17 ` [PATCH 1/8] Remove H_CFLAGS from doc/local.mk Tom Tromey
2023-02-08 7:17 ` [PATCH 2/8] Simplify @node use in BFD documentation Tom Tromey
2023-03-03 8:20 ` Jan Beulich [this message]
2023-03-03 23:08 ` Tom Tromey
2023-03-06 7:07 ` Jan Beulich
2023-02-08 7:17 ` [PATCH 3/8] Add copyright headers to the .str files Tom Tromey
2023-02-08 7:17 ` [PATCH 4/8] Remove the paramstuff word Tom Tromey
2023-02-08 7:17 ` [PATCH 5/8] Use intptr_t rather than long in chew Tom Tromey
2023-02-08 7:17 ` [PATCH 6/8] Change internalmode to be an intrinsic variable Tom Tromey
2023-02-08 7:17 ` [PATCH 7/8] Use @deftypefn in chew output Tom Tromey
2023-02-15 17:55 ` Simon Marchi
2023-02-15 23:11 ` Tom Tromey
2023-02-16 1:29 ` Simon Marchi
2023-02-19 3:46 ` Alan Modra
2023-02-08 7:17 ` [PATCH 8/8] Remove RETURNS from BFD chew comments Tom Tromey
2023-02-15 9:54 ` [PATCH 0/8] Make the BFD info manual a bit prettier Nick Clifton
2023-02-15 21:51 ` Tom Tromey
2023-02-16 9:40 ` Nick Clifton
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=8392b8ac-2447-2721-706b-aae4c3021404@suse.com \
--to=jbeulich@suse.com \
--cc=binutils@sourceware.org \
--cc=tom@tromey.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).