* Re: Um... what format are Cygwin manpages? [not found] ` <20060810202721.GC935@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> @ 2006-08-10 20:45 ` mwoehlke 2006-08-10 20:54 ` Christopher Faylor 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: mwoehlke @ 2006-08-10 20:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cygwin-talk Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 03:20:21PM -0500, mwoehlke wrote: >> Anyway, if it turns out I have to patch an info file, then I guess I'm >> stuck doing that. Assuming anyone on newlib pays attention to me. So >> far, zilch. > > Yes, you definitely have to *patch* the *source* of the documentation that > you want changed if you want someone to apply it. I think the point is that I would hope they would accept a flat-out new file, if it was that major a re-working (which IMO it should be; I find the layout of glibc's manpage a lot easier to understand, in addition to being more accurate). But... if I'm to do anything with the texinfo source, I have to *find* it first. Sigh. I am losing enthusiasm for this project. -- Matthew vIMprove your life! Now on version 7! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Um... what format are Cygwin manpages? 2006-08-10 20:45 ` Um... what format are Cygwin manpages? mwoehlke @ 2006-08-10 20:54 ` Christopher Faylor 2006-08-10 21:21 ` mwoehlke 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Christopher Faylor @ 2006-08-10 20:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: The Cygwin-Talk Maiming List On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 03:41:12PM -0500, mwoehlke wrote: >Christopher Faylor wrote: >>On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 03:20:21PM -0500, mwoehlke wrote: >>>Anyway, if it turns out I have to patch an info file, then I guess I'm >>>stuck doing that. Assuming anyone on newlib pays attention to me. So >>>far, zilch. >> >>Yes, you definitely have to *patch* the *source* of the documentation that >>you want changed if you want someone to apply it. > >I think the point is that I would hope they would accept a flat-out new >file, if it was that major a re-working (which IMO it should be; I find >the layout of glibc's manpage a lot easier to understand, in addition to >being more accurate). > >But... if I'm to do anything with the texinfo source, I have to *find* >it first. Sigh. I am losing enthusiasm for this project. Come on, mwoehlke, you know the drill by now. It isn't that hard to find the source and you don't get to choose your own method for providing patches. It's pretty standard to supply patches against source code. I imagine that the source code in question is in libc.info. The web site for newlib is http://sourceware.org/newlib/ . cgf ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Um... what format are Cygwin manpages? 2006-08-10 20:54 ` Christopher Faylor @ 2006-08-10 21:21 ` mwoehlke 2006-08-10 21:31 ` Christopher Faylor 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: mwoehlke @ 2006-08-10 21:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cygwin-talk Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 03:41:12PM -0500, mwoehlke wrote: >> Christopher Faylor wrote: >>> On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 03:20:21PM -0500, mwoehlke wrote: >>>> Anyway, if it turns out I have to patch an info file, then I guess I'm >>>> stuck doing that. Assuming anyone on newlib pays attention to me. So >>>> far, zilch. >>> Yes, you definitely have to *patch* the *source* of the documentation that >>> you want changed if you want someone to apply it. >> I think the point is that I would hope they would accept a flat-out new >> file, if it was that major a re-working (which IMO it should be; I find >> the layout of glibc's manpage a lot easier to understand, in addition to >> being more accurate). >> >> But... if I'm to do anything with the texinfo source, I have to *find* >> it first. Sigh. I am losing enthusiasm for this project. > > Come on, mwoehlke, you know the drill by now. It isn't that hard to > find the source and you don't get to choose your own method for > providing patches. It's pretty standard to supply patches against > source code. > > I imagine that the source code in question is in libc.info. The web site > for newlib is http://sourceware.org/newlib/ . I do. You misunderstood :-). (Then again, I didn't specify what I'd done, did I? Shame on me :-).) What I meant to say was that I went and poked around the web CVS interface at http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/?cvsroot=src and *still* couldn't find it. And... having gone and poked around further, I think you meant "sprintf.def". Whew, for a while I was afraid I was going to have to syn the whole *tree* and use 'find'. :-) Now... where is "sprintf.def"? :-) (Don't worry, I'm still looking for it.) -- Matthew vIMprove your life! Now on version 7! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Um... what format are Cygwin manpages? 2006-08-10 21:21 ` mwoehlke @ 2006-08-10 21:31 ` Christopher Faylor 2006-08-10 22:26 ` What's wrong with *roff, anyway? (Was: Um... what format are Cygwin manpages?) mwoehlke 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Christopher Faylor @ 2006-08-10 21:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: The Cygwin-Talk Maiming List On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 04:21:13PM -0500, mwoehlke wrote: >Christopher Faylor wrote: >>On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 03:41:12PM -0500, mwoehlke wrote: >>>Christopher Faylor wrote: >>>>On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 03:20:21PM -0500, mwoehlke wrote: >>>>>Anyway, if it turns out I have to patch an info file, then I guess I'm >>>>>stuck doing that. Assuming anyone on newlib pays attention to me. So >>>>>far, zilch. >>>>Yes, you definitely have to *patch* the *source* of the documentation >>>>that >>>>you want changed if you want someone to apply it. >>>I think the point is that I would hope they would accept a flat-out new >>>file, if it was that major a re-working (which IMO it should be; I find >>>the layout of glibc's manpage a lot easier to understand, in addition to >>>being more accurate). >>> >>>But... if I'm to do anything with the texinfo source, I have to *find* >>>it first. Sigh. I am losing enthusiasm for this project. >> >>Come on, mwoehlke, you know the drill by now. It isn't that hard to >>find the source and you don't get to choose your own method for >>providing patches. It's pretty standard to supply patches against >>source code. >> >>I imagine that the source code in question is in libc.info. The web site >>for newlib is http://sourceware.org/newlib/ . > >I do. You misunderstood :-). (Then again, I didn't specify what I'd >done, did I? Shame on me :-).) > >What I meant to say was that I went and poked around the web CVS >interface at http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/?cvsroot=src >and *still* couldn't find it. And... having gone and poked around >further, I think you meant "sprintf.def". Whew, for a while I was afraid >I was going to have to syn the whole *tree* and use 'find'. :-) > >Now... where is "sprintf.def"? :-) >(Don't worry, I'm still looking for it.) Actually, on some further digging it is, most likely, in sprintf.c So, no texinfo editing required. cgf ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* What's wrong with *roff, anyway? (Was: Um... what format are Cygwin manpages?) 2006-08-10 21:31 ` Christopher Faylor @ 2006-08-10 22:26 ` mwoehlke 2006-08-11 8:34 ` Corinna Vinschen 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: mwoehlke @ 2006-08-10 22:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cygwin-talk Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 04:21:13PM -0500, mwoehlke wrote: >> Christopher Faylor wrote: >>> On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 03:41:12PM -0500, mwoehlke wrote: >>>> Christopher Faylor wrote: >>>>> On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 03:20:21PM -0500, mwoehlke wrote: >>>>>> Anyway, if it turns out I have to patch an info file, then I guess I'm >>>>>> stuck doing that. Assuming anyone on newlib pays attention to me. So >>>>>> far, zilch. >>>>> Yes, you definitely have to *patch* the *source* of the documentation >>>>> that >>>>> you want changed if you want someone to apply it. >>>> I think the point is that I would hope they would accept a flat-out new >>>> file, if it was that major a re-working (which IMO it should be; I find >>>> the layout of glibc's manpage a lot easier to understand, in addition to >>>> being more accurate). >>>> >>>> But... if I'm to do anything with the texinfo source, I have to *find* >>>> it first. Sigh. I am losing enthusiasm for this project. >>> Come on, mwoehlke, you know the drill by now. It isn't that hard to >>> find the source and you don't get to choose your own method for >>> providing patches. It's pretty standard to supply patches against >>> source code. >>> >>> I imagine that the source code in question is in libc.info. The web site >>> for newlib is http://sourceware.org/newlib/ . >> I do. You misunderstood :-). (Then again, I didn't specify what I'd >> done, did I? Shame on me :-).) >> >> What I meant to say was that I went and poked around the web CVS >> interface at http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/?cvsroot=src >> and *still* couldn't find it. And... having gone and poked around >> further, I think you meant "sprintf.def". Whew, for a while I was afraid >> I was going to have to syn the whole *tree* and use 'find'. :-) >> >> Now... where is "sprintf.def"? :-) >> (Don't worry, I'm still looking for it.) > > Actually, on some further digging it is, most likely, in sprintf.c > So, no texinfo editing required. Hey! Now I found that /all//by//myself/, thank you! ;-) (See, I told you I'd keep looking.) And... now I understand why the ->nroff converter works so poorly. Eek. Do you really do the indentation and line length *by hand*, or am I missing something? -- Matthew vIMprove your life! Now on version 7! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: What's wrong with *roff, anyway? (Was: Um... what format are Cygwin manpages?) 2006-08-10 22:26 ` What's wrong with *roff, anyway? (Was: Um... what format are Cygwin manpages?) mwoehlke @ 2006-08-11 8:34 ` Corinna Vinschen 2006-08-11 15:30 ` mwoehlke 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Corinna Vinschen @ 2006-08-11 8:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cygwin-talk On Aug 10 17:25, mwoehlke wrote: > Christopher Faylor wrote: > >Actually, on some further digging it is, most likely, in sprintf.c > >So, no texinfo editing required. > > Hey! Now I found that /all//by//myself/, thank you! ;-) > (See, I told you I'd keep looking.) > > And... now I understand why the ->nroff converter works so poorly. Eek. > Do you really do the indentation and line length *by hand*, or am I > missing something? Hey, you could just sit down and generate a patch which pulls all documentation out of the source files, changes it to texinfo format and integrates them in a structured way into the newlib/doc subdirectory. Then you just have to add the Makefiles changes so that generation and installation as man pages, info pages, html pages, tex documentation, pdf files... is possible. I'm *sure* Jeff would like the idea and happily take the patch. Corinna ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: What's wrong with *roff, anyway? (Was: Um... what format are Cygwin manpages?) 2006-08-11 8:34 ` Corinna Vinschen @ 2006-08-11 15:30 ` mwoehlke 0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: mwoehlke @ 2006-08-11 15:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cygwin-talk; +Cc: newlib (Time to take this to the newlib list...) Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Aug 10 17:25, mwoehlke wrote: >> Christopher Faylor wrote: >>> Actually, on some further digging it is, most likely, in sprintf.c >>> So, no texinfo editing required. >> Hey! Now I found that /all//by//myself/, thank you! ;-) >> (See, I told you I'd keep looking.) >> >> And... now I understand why the ->nroff converter works so poorly. Eek. >> Do you really do the indentation and line length *by hand*, or am I >> missing something? > > Hey, you could just sit down and generate a patch which pulls all > documentation out of the source files, changes it to texinfo format and > integrates them in a structured way into the newlib/doc subdirectory. > Then you just have to add the Makefiles changes so that generation and > installation as man pages, info pages, html pages, tex documentation, > pdf files... is possible. I'm *sure* Jeff would like the idea and > happily take the patch. Well, the *real* question was 'will the newlib folks tolerate their doc being in a more useful but harder-to-understand format?'. It sounds like you're fairly convinced the answer is "yes"... so maybe I'll keep this on my list after all. Although I must be honest and say I'm more familiar with nroff then LaTeX; I'm tempted to make an nroff->LaTeX convertor. ;-) But probably I will go with SGML because I know there are SGML->nroff/LaTeX converters. And yes, if *I* start tinkering I will probably set things up so the makefile will generate at minimum info doc and man pages. I'll leave PDF, HTML, etc to someone else, but my understanding is that PDF is easily generated from either LaTeX or nroff, and HTML is easily generated from nroff (*I* don't know about LaTeX, but that doesn't mean it can't be done). And of course SGML->HTML is probably easy, too. :-) Anyway, thanks for the pointers! ...And I hope you're right about Jeff. ;-) -- Matthew "We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad... You must be, or you wouldn't have come here." -- The Cheshire Cat ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2006-08-11 15:30 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- [not found] <ebd0om$gjh$1@sea.gmane.org> [not found] ` <cb51e2e0608092159t14175e52jeb656ffd2cc123a1@mail.gmail.com> [not found] ` <ebfiu4$4pn$1@sea.gmane.org> [not found] ` <cb51e2e0608101108g41c88386wd7219aaead8ca396@mail.gmail.com> [not found] ` <ebg4e5$39g$1@sea.gmane.org> [not found] ` <20060810202721.GC935@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> 2006-08-10 20:45 ` Um... what format are Cygwin manpages? mwoehlke 2006-08-10 20:54 ` Christopher Faylor 2006-08-10 21:21 ` mwoehlke 2006-08-10 21:31 ` Christopher Faylor 2006-08-10 22:26 ` What's wrong with *roff, anyway? (Was: Um... what format are Cygwin manpages?) mwoehlke 2006-08-11 8:34 ` Corinna Vinschen 2006-08-11 15:30 ` mwoehlke
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).