From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: jimb@zwingli.cygnus.com Cc: ac131313@cygnus.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [Jim Blandy ] RFA: Don't pass -glossary flag to texi2html Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 23:39:00 -0000 Message-id: <5567-Fri12Oct2001083936+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il> References: <3405-Fri12Oct2001001736+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il> <3BC61DEC.1080902@cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-10/msg00165.html > From: Jim Blandy > Date: 11 Oct 2001 19:18:05 -0500 > > Andrew Cagney writes: > > >> From: Jim Blandy > > >> 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?)