Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 23:14:30 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: cygwin-doc ready for upload
Message-ID: <20020416031430.GC25464@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
References: <20020416030008 DOT 58433 DOT qmail AT web20002 DOT mail DOT yahoo DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20020416030008.58433.qmail@web20002.mail.yahoo.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i

On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 08:00:08PM -0700, Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote:
>>I just checked the discussion about this, and you asked if someone was
>>already maintaining newlib-man.  I don't think I ever answered but the
>>answer is "no".  It looks like the man pages aren't even generated by
>>newlib anymore.  Instead there is a big info file generated by 'make
>>info'.
>>
>>Any chance that this could be incorpoated into your distribution?  The
>>sources are already part of the cygwin package so there isn't any need
>>to include them.
>
>OK, it sounds like I should:
>1) incorporate newlib-man-20001118 into cygwin-doc, maybe after a
>little sed that would put a "This doc is no longer being maintained;
>try info"

But, where would the user find the info file?  It isn't in any distribution
yet.

Alternatively, you could just include the current newlib info files in the
package.

>2) work on something to break the current newlib texinfo into man pages

There are packages to do this.  Possibly gcc uses one already.

>Either way, I'd rather go ahead with the cygwin-doc as-is and put it on
>my documentation todo list.

I don't want to be pushy but I would really prefer that you incorporate
the newlib stuff via either 1) or 2) (2 preferred).  I foresee confusion
otherwise.

cgf