This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-talk
mailing list for the cygwin project.
Re: Um... what format are Cygwin manpages?
- From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-no-personal-reply-please at cygwin dot com>
- To: The Cygwin-Talk Maiming List <cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 16:54:21 -0400
- Subject: Re: Um... what format are Cygwin manpages?
- References: <ebd0om$gjh$1@sea.gmane.org> <cb51e2e0608092159t14175e52jeb656ffd2cc123a1@mail.gmail.com> <ebfiu4$4pn$1@sea.gmane.org> <cb51e2e0608101108g41c88386wd7219aaead8ca396@mail.gmail.com> <ebg4e5$39g$1@sea.gmane.org> <20060810202721.GC935@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> <ebg5l8$5f2$2@sea.gmane.org>
- Reply-to: cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com
- Reply-to: The Cygwin-Talk Maiming List <cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com>
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