Re: Um... what format are Cygwin manpages?

Re: Um... what format are Cygwin manpages?

[mwoehlke]

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!

Re: Um... what format are Cygwin manpages?

[Christopher Faylor]

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

Re: Um... what format are Cygwin manpages?

[mwoehlke]

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!

Re: Um... what format are Cygwin manpages?

[Christopher Faylor]

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

What's wrong with *roff, anyway? (Was: Um... what format are Cygwin manpages?)

[mwoehlke]

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!

Re: What's wrong with *roff, anyway? (Was: Um... what format are Cygwin manpages?)

[Corinna Vinschen]

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

Re: What's wrong with *roff, anyway? (Was: Um... what format are Cygwin manpages?)

[mwoehlke]

(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