X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mailnull set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020225192720.026a2120@mail.dorsai.org> X-Sender: pjfarley AT mail DOT dorsai DOT org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 19:56:55 -0500 To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com From: "Peter J. Farley III" Subject: Re: Dircategories and (tex|txi|texi|texinfo]) files Cc: Eli Zaretskii In-Reply-To: References: <5 DOT 1 DOT 0 DOT 14 DOT 2 DOT 20020224202214 DOT 00ab8e50 AT mail DOT dorsai DOT org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk At 05:07 PM 2/25/02 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >On Sun, 24 Feb 2002, Peter J. Farley III wrote: >> It's been a while, and I'm not sure how much time I can personally >> devote to resolving this, but Rich Dawe suggested I bring this issue >> to the list, so here it is. > >Thanks for all the footwork! You're welcome. I can't help myself sometimes -- this stuff just cries out to be fixed. <*Sigh*> That's what I get for being a life-long programmer -- no resistance to the urge to "fix that one last bug..." :) Even when I am already over-committed and under-slept. >I would like to suggest yet another alternative, that is almost >identical to your #4. It's a 2-step dance: > > 1) Don't put install-info commands into the DSM files for packages >that > already have entries in the DIR file from the latest released >djdev. > > 2) When you do put install-info commands into the DSM, use the >--section > option of install-info to specify the precise section where we >want > the entry to be placed. If necessary, use the --entry option as >well. Makes good sense to me. However, rather than removing the install-info entries in DSM's, why not just leave them all in there *with* the appropriate DJGPP section names? The critical requirement for this to work is the answer to the question: What happens to info/dir when you install-info an entry that already exists into a section that already exists? I *hope* it just replaces the "old" entry in the same place, effectively leaving the info/dir file intact. Does it? (I'll test this myself later, just asking to get an "official" answer.) >The rationale for this is that we maintain the DIR file manually, and >any >new ported packages are normally added to it right away (well, at least >that's the theory ;-). So for most packages, users who install >something >do not need to run install-info at all, since it's all have been done >for them already. The only exceptions are the packages ported since >the last djdev release; thus clause 2) above. Understood, but leaving the install-info commands in DSM files (with appropriate --section and/or --entry arguments) has the added advantage of letting "new" ports get into info/dir in the right place, even before they get "officially" added in the CVS info/dir. Handy for porters and for adventurous souls who volunteer to test ports. >Of course (putting on my Texinfo co-maintainer hat), if you spot an >Info >manual without @dircategory or @direntry, or with faulty entries, >please >report that to the respective package maintainer(s). But whatever they >do to get their act together, we in the DJGPP project will almost >certainly use a different partition in the DIR file, so even the fixed >manuals will not satisfy our specific needs. Which is the "right" thing to do, and which I may indeed do for a few of the packages myself. But what "categories" do we recommend to the GNU maintainer: The ones in the "standard"? I'd make up and use a very different list than theirs. I will send some change recommendations to the gnu-standards buglist after doing some archive research, and see what response I get. >> Vis-a-vis alternative #3, there *is* a recommendation in the GNU >> Programming Standards document about how "info/dir" files should be >> structured and sectioned. > >These standards don't make much sense for DJGPP users, since they >almost >never build the packages themselves. So it doesn't do us any good to >comply to the standard DIR partition, especially since the bulk of the >GNU project has yet to catch up with these standards. As long as >there's >a mess out there, we had better fix it manually, like we've been doing >all the time. Agreed, which is why I brought the problem here first. --------------------------------------------------------- Peter J. Farley III (pjfarley AT dorsai DOT org)