Re: [Jim Blandy <jimb@cygnus.com>] RFA: Don't pass -glossary flag to texi2html

Re: [Jim Blandy <jimb@cygnus.com>] RFA: Don't pass -glossary flag to texi2html

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Jim Blandy <jimb@zwingli.cygnus.com>
> Date: 11 Oct 2001 14:46:09 -0500
> 
> You have have missed it, but this is a patch to gdb/doc/Makefile.in.

I didn't miss it, it's just that I never use texi2html (and frankly
don't understand why won't we use "makeinfo --html"), and Andrew
already gave his blessing.

So if you need my approval as well, consider it given.

Thanks.

Re: [Jim Blandy <jimb@cygnus.com>] RFA: Don't pass -glossary flag to texi2html

[Andrew Cagney]

>> From: Jim Blandy <jimb@zwingli.cygnus.com>
>> Date: 11 Oct 2001 14:46:09 -0500
>> 
>> You have have missed it, but this is a patch to gdb/doc/Makefile.in.
> 
> 
> I didn't miss it, it's just that I never use texi2html (and frankly
> don't understand why won't we use "makeinfo --html"), and Andrew
> already gave his blessing.

 From memory, at the time texi2html gave better output than `makeinfo 
--html` (why it was better I don't remember).  It is probably getting 
near high time to re-consider the decision.

enjoy,
Andrew

Re: [Jim Blandy <jimb@cygnus.com>] RFA: Don't pass -glossary flag to texi2html

[Jim Blandy]

Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com> writes:
> >> From: Jim Blandy <jimb@zwingli.cygnus.com>
> >> Date: 11 Oct 2001 14:46:09 -0500
> >> 
> >> You have have missed it, but this is a patch to gdb/doc/Makefile.in.
> > 
> > 
> > I didn't miss it, it's just that I never use texi2html (and frankly
> > don't understand why won't we use "makeinfo --html"), and Andrew
> > already gave his blessing.
> 
>  From memory, at the time texi2html gave better output than `makeinfo 
> --html` (why it was better I don't remember).  It is probably getting 
> near high time to re-consider the decision.

From gdb/doc/Makefile.in:

# Note that texinfo 4.0's makeinfo --html can only generate a
# single file, which would be too large, so continue to use
# texi2html. -sts 2000-03-28

Re: [Jim Blandy <jimb@cygnus.com>] RFA: Don't pass -glossary flag to texi2html

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Jim Blandy <jimb@zwingli.cygnus.com>
> Date: 11 Oct 2001 19:18:05 -0500
> 
> Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com> writes:
> > >> From: Jim Blandy <jimb@zwingli.cygnus.com>
> > >> Date: 11 Oct 2001 14:46:09 -0500
> > >> 
> > >> You have have missed it, but this is a patch to gdb/doc/Makefile.in.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I didn't miss it, it's just that I never use texi2html (and frankly
> > > don't understand why won't we use "makeinfo --html"), and Andrew
> > > already gave his blessing.
> > 
> >  From memory, at the time texi2html gave better output than `makeinfo 
> > --html` (why it was better I don't remember).  It is probably getting 
> > near high time to re-consider the decision.
> 
> >From gdb/doc/Makefile.in:
> 
> # Note that texinfo 4.0's makeinfo --html can only generate a
> # single file, which would be too large, so continue to use
> # texi2html. -sts 2000-03-28

March 2000?  That's ages ago ;-)

Anyway, there are versions of Texinfo on alpha.gnu.org which support
split by node.  Also, I have a small program I wrote years ago which
can split an HTML file produced by makeinfo by nodes (and rewrite all
the xrefs, so they stay valid).

texi2html has a problem that it doesn't support all the latest
additions to Texinfo, so using it will put a drag on us when we will
want to use those new features.  (Did someone see what do @ifnothtml
and @ifnottex do in texi2html?)

Re: [Jim Blandy <jimb@cygnus.com>] RFA: Don't pass -glossary flag to texi2html

[Jim Blandy]

"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@is.elta.co.il> writes:
> > >From gdb/doc/Makefile.in:
> > 
> > # Note that texinfo 4.0's makeinfo --html can only generate a
> > # single file, which would be too large, so continue to use
> > # texi2html. -sts 2000-03-28
> 
> March 2000?  That's ages ago ;-)

Yep.  But 4.0 is still the latest released version.  :( 

> Anyway, there are versions of Texinfo on alpha.gnu.org which support
> split by node.  Also, I have a small program I wrote years ago which
> can split an HTML file produced by makeinfo by nodes (and rewrite all
> the xrefs, so they stay valid).

Wow!

> texi2html has a problem that it doesn't support all the latest
> additions to Texinfo, so using it will put a drag on us when we will
> want to use those new features.  (Did someone see what do @ifnothtml
> and @ifnottex do in texi2html?)

Oh, texi2html is a total mess.  Code to handle -glossary is actually
present in the code, but I couldn't follow the logic far enough to see
why it didn't work.

I'd much rather use makeinfo, if it behaves acceptably.

If you know the folks maintaining texinfo, is there any chance you
could prompt them to look over the patch I sent them last week?