Re: Split man directory

Re: Split man directory

[Glenn Morris]

Richard Stallman wrote:

> I would like to split the `man' directory, putting the auxiliary
> manuals into a different directory, and keeping only the Emacs manual
> in `man'.  Can someone please do this?

Would you prefer a subdirectory of man (man/aux), or a new directory
at the same level (man-aux)?

Re: Split man directory

[David Kastrup]

Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org> writes:

> Richard Stallman wrote:
>
>> I would like to split the `man' directory, putting the auxiliary
>> manuals into a different directory, and keeping only the Emacs manual
>> in `man'.  Can someone please do this?
>
> Would you prefer a subdirectory of man (man/aux), or a new directory
> at the same level (man-aux)?

By the way, what is the rationale for that?  They are going to be
installed in the same place, anyway, aren't they?

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Split man directory

[Richard Stallman]

Splitting the directory will make things cleaner
and make it possible to search just the Emacs manual
without searching the rest.

Re: Split man directory

[David Kastrup]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

> Splitting the directory will make things cleaner

In what respect?

> and make it possible to search just the Emacs manual
> without searching the rest.

Huh?  Manual searches are usually performed in the info files, and the
Emacs info file is separate from others.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Split man directory

[Richard Stallman]

    > Splitting the directory will make things cleaner

    In what respect?

The source files for the Emacs Manual will be in
a separate directory.  That is cleaner.

    > and make it possible to search just the Emacs manual
    > without searching the rest.

    Huh?  Manual searches are usually performed in the info files, and the
    Emacs info file is separate from others.

I'm talking about searching the sources.  I have often wanted to
search just the source files for the Emacs manual.

Re: Split man directory

[Glenn Morris]

Richard Stallman wrote:

> I'm talking about searching the sources. I have often wanted to
> search just the source files for the Emacs manual.

The target `make emacsman' is designed for this, as it says in
man/Makefile.

Re: Split man directory

[Richard Stallman]

    > I'm talking about searching the sources. I have often wanted to
    > search just the source files for the Emacs manual.

    The target `make emacsman' is designed for this, as it says in
    man/Makefile.

I did not know about that; thank you.  But I still think it
is cleaner to split the directory.

Re: Split man directory

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org>
> Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 22:49:47 -0400
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> Would you prefer a subdirectory of man (man/aux), or a new directory
> at the same level (man-aux)?

Please, whatever you do, don't give that directory the name "aux": it
will cause a terrible trouble on MS-DOS/MS-Windows.  "aux" is a name
of a legacy device driver there, so no real disk file can have that
name, nor any name that matches the "aux.*" wildcard.

Re: Split man directory

[Richard Stallman]

    Would you prefer a subdirectory of man (man/aux), or a new directory
    at the same level (man-aux)?

I think the same level would be better, since we have two other manuals
at that same level already.  Can we find any better name than man-aux?

Re: Split man directory

[Glenn Morris]

Richard Stallman wrote:

> I think the same level would be better, since we have two other
> manuals at that same level already.

OK.

> Can we find any better name than man-aux?

I knew this would be the tricky part. Open to suggestions...

Re: Split man directory

[Andreas Schwab]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

> I think the same level would be better, since we have two other manuals
> at that same level already.  Can we find any better name than man-aux?

I'd create a new directory emacsref and leave the rest of the manuals in
man.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
PGP key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."

Re: Split man directory

[Richard Stallman]

    > I think the same level would be better, since we have two other manuals
    > at that same level already.  Can we find any better name than man-aux?

    I'd create a new directory emacsref and leave the rest of the manuals in
    man.

Since the Emacs Manual is the main manual for Emacs, and the
others are secondary, I'd rather do it as I said before.

Re: Split man directory

[Glenn Morris]

Richard Stallman wrote:

>     I'd create a new directory emacsref and leave the rest of the
>     manuals in man.
>
> Since the Emacs Manual is the main manual for Emacs, and the others
> are secondary, I'd rather do it as I said before.

It's only a directory name, what difference does it make? The "man"
directory is confusingly named, IMO, because it has nothing to do with
the traditional Unix "man" directory. It doesn't even contain sources
for man pages.

emacsref/man/doc and miscref/man/doc?

Re: Split man directory

[Ralf Angeli]

* Glenn Morris (2007-09-03) writes:

> Richard Stallman wrote:
>
>> Since the Emacs Manual is the main manual for Emacs, and the others
>> are secondary, I'd rather do it as I said before.
>
> It's only a directory name, what difference does it make? The "man"
> directory is confusingly named, IMO, because it has nothing to do with
> the traditional Unix "man" directory. It doesn't even contain sources
> for man pages.
>
> emacsref/man/doc and miscref/man/doc?

If the manuals are supposed to be stored in a central place I'd suggest
a "man/<manual>" directory structure.  The result would be "man/emacs",
"man/lispref", and perhaps "man/other".  If a manual is split into
several files this could be supported by adding a directory for it below
"man" or "man/other".  (BTW, the RefTeX manual was split some time ago
in the AUCTeX repository.)

A completely different approach would be to put the documentation of
libraries or packages where the code is and have a per package directory
structure like "lib/<package>/lisp" and "lib/<package>/doc".

I hope I don't blow this discussion out of proportion with such a
suggestion.

-- 
Ralf

Re: Split man directory

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Ralf Angeli <angeli@caeruleus.net>
> Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 21:19:32 +0200
> Cc: Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de>, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> If the manuals are supposed to be stored in a central place I'd suggest
> a "man/<manual>" directory structure.  The result would be "man/emacs",
> "man/lispref", and perhaps "man/other".

Indeed.  But instead of `man', why not use the GNU-standard `doc'?
Thus, we will have

  doc/emacs
  doc/lispref
  doc/lispintro
  doc/contrib (for other manuals)

Re: Split man directory

[Leo]

On 2007-09-03 20:39 +0100, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> Indeed.  But instead of `man', why not use the GNU-standard `doc'?
> Thus, we will have
>
>   doc/emacs
>   doc/lispref
>   doc/lispintro
>   doc/contrib (for other manuals)

this looks intuitive.

-- 
Leo <sdl.web AT gmail.com>                (GPG Key: 9283AA3F)

      Gnus is one component of the Emacs operating system.

Re: Split man directory

[David Kastrup]

Leo <sdl.web@gmail.com> writes:

> On 2007-09-03 20:39 +0100, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Indeed.  But instead of `man', why not use the GNU-standard `doc'?
>> Thus, we will have
>>
>>   doc/emacs
>>   doc/lispref
>>   doc/lispintro
>>   doc/contrib (for other manuals)
>
> this looks intuitive.

I'd use "other" or "misc" rather than "contrib": after all, the
manuals are all (c) FSF and part of Emacs proper.

Other than that, this looks reasonable.  I am not entirely sure
whether "doc" is not intended for plain text documentation.  However,
it seems less weird than "man".

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Split man directory

[Stefan Monnier]

> I'd use "other" or "misc" rather than "contrib": after all, the
> manuals are all (c) FSF and part of Emacs proper.

Why not "packages"?


        Stefan

Re: Split man directory

[David Kastrup]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

>> I'd use "other" or "misc" rather than "contrib": after all, the
>> manuals are all (c) FSF and part of Emacs proper.
>
> Why not "packages"?

Because they aren't organized as packages at all?

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: Split man directory

[Stephen Berman]

On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 14:25:58 +0200 David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:

> Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:
>
>>> I'd use "other" or "misc" rather than "contrib": after all, the
>>> manuals are all (c) FSF and part of Emacs proper.
>>
>> Why not "packages"?
>
> Because they aren't organized as packages at all?

A few more possibilities:

"extra"
"supplementary" (or "supp", "suppl")
"auxiliary" (or "auxil", "auxl", since "aux" is a no-no)
"additional" (or "add", "addn", "addl")

Steve Berman

Re: Split man directory

[Richard Stallman]

    A few more possibilities:

    "extra"
    "supplementary" (or "supp", "suppl")
    "auxiliary" (or "auxil", "auxl", since "aux" is a no-no)
    "additional" (or "add", "addn", "addl")

I prefer "misc".

Re: Split man directory

[Miles Bader]

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
>>> I'd use "other" or "misc" rather than "contrib": after all, the
>>> manuals are all (c) FSF and part of Emacs proper.
>>
>> Why not "packages"?
>
> Because they aren't organized as packages at all?

"misc" seems pretty good, as they are miscellaneous things...
("contrib" is just plain wrong)

-Miles

-- 
Americans are broad-minded people.  They'll accept the fact that a person can
be an alcoholic, a dope fiend, a wife beater, and even a newspaperman, but if a
man doesn't drive, there is something wrong with him.  -- Art Buchwald

Re: Split man directory

[Richard Stallman]

    Indeed.  But instead of `man', why not use the GNU-standard `doc'?
    Thus, we will have

      doc/emacs
      doc/lispref
      doc/lispintro
      doc/contrib (for other manuals)

This is fine with me (I agree with the person who said `misc' is better
than `contrib').

I just wonder whether the added cleanness of creating a directory to
hold these four dirs outweights the disadvantage of moving them down
one level.  If there were many of them, such as 8, then it would be
clearly yes.  With just 4, it might be more annoyance than it is worth.

Re: Split man directory

[Juri Linkov]

>     Indeed.  But instead of `man', why not use the GNU-standard `doc'?
>     Thus, we will have
>
>       doc/emacs
>       doc/lispref
>       doc/lispintro
>       doc/contrib (for other manuals)
>
> This is fine with me (I agree with the person who said `misc' is better
> than `contrib').
>
> I just wonder whether the added cleanness of creating a directory to
> hold these four dirs outweights the disadvantage of moving them down
> one level.  If there were many of them, such as 8, then it would be
> clearly yes.  With just 4, it might be more annoyance than it is worth.

Some manuals are very large (e.g. calc.texi, gnus.texi).  It makes sense
to create a separate directory under doc/ for packages with large manuals
and split these manuals to smaller files.

-- 
Juri Linkov
http://www.jurta.org/emacs/

Re: Split man directory

[Richard Stallman]

    Some manuals are very large (e.g. calc.texi, gnus.texi).  It makes sense
    to create a separate directory under doc/ for packages with large manuals
    and split these manuals to smaller files.

I am convinced.

Ok, let's use the scheme of subdirs of doc.

Splitting gnus.texi (was: Split man directory)

[Reiner Steib]

On Wed, Sep 05 2007, Juri Linkov wrote:

> Some manuals are very large (e.g. calc.texi, gnus.texi).  It makes sense
> to create a separate directory under doc/ for packages with large manuals
> and split these manuals to smaller files.

It might make sense to make a separate directory for Gnus manual files
(in current Gnus trunk: gnus-coding, gnus-news, gnus-faq, gnus) or
Gnus-related files (the former plus message, sasl, emacs-mime, pgg and
sieve).  But what would be the benefit of splitting gnus.texi into
several files?

Bye, Reiner.
-- 
       ,,,
      (o o)
---ooO-(_)-Ooo---  |  PGP key available  |  http://rsteib.home.pages.de/

Re: Splitting gnus.texi (was: Split man directory)

[Richard Stallman]

It would be good to split gnus.texi into 10 to 15 files
just because it is so big.  Similar for calc.texi.

Re: Splitting gnus.texi

[Katsumi Yamaoka]

>>>>> Richard Stallman wrote:

> It would be good to split gnus.texi into 10 to 15 files
> just because it is so big.  Similar for calc.texi.

At least for gnus.texi, I don't see the benefit of splitting.
It's indeed big, but is not too big to edit with Emacs.  Rather,
I cannot ignore a disadvantage of splitting it.  I sometimes
write in it.  Since various Gnus functions are related mutually,
I frequently check other items concerned when I write something.
For example, when I write description about nntp, I have to check
whether my writing does not conflict with descriptions of other
sections.  When I hesitate whether I should add @vindex for the
nntp-foo-bar variable, I scan the whole gnus.texi.  I do also it
when I examine it should be @acronym{NNTP}, @code{nntp}, or NNTP.
Now I only need to type `C-s nntp' for them.  But if gnus.texi is
split into 10 to 15 files, it will be quite troublesome.

I can agree with splitting if it is very useful to users, though.

Regards,

Re: Splitting gnus.texi

[Reiner Steib]

On Wed, Sep 26 2007, Katsumi Yamaoka wrote:

>>>>>> Richard Stallman wrote:
>
>> It would be good to split gnus.texi into 10 to 15 files
>> just because it is so big.  Similar for calc.texi.
>
> At least for gnus.texi, I don't see the benefit of splitting.
> It's indeed big, but is not too big to edit with Emacs.  Rather,
> I cannot ignore a disadvantage of splitting it.  I sometimes
> write in it.  Since various Gnus functions are related mutually,
> I frequently check other items concerned when I write something.
> [...]  But if gnus.texi is split into 10 to 15 files, it will be
> quite troublesome.
>
> I can agree with splitting if it is very useful to users, though.

Additionally, splitting destroys CVS annovate (vc-annotoate).  I also
see no problem with the size.

Bye, Reiner.
-- 
       ,,,
      (o o)
---ooO-(_)-Ooo---  |  PGP key available  |  http://rsteib.home.pages.de/

Re: Splitting gnus.texi

[Giorgos Keramidas]

On 2007-09-26 08:07, Reiner Steib <reinersteib+gmane@imap.cc> wrote:
>On Wed, Sep 26 2007, Katsumi Yamaoka wrote:
>>>>>>> Richard Stallman wrote:
>>
>>> It would be good to split gnus.texi into 10 to 15 files
>>> just because it is so big.  Similar for calc.texi.
>>
>> At least for gnus.texi, I don't see the benefit of splitting.
>> It's indeed big, but is not too big to edit with Emacs.  Rather,
>> I cannot ignore a disadvantage of splitting it.  I sometimes
>> write in it.  Since various Gnus functions are related mutually,
>> I frequently check other items concerned when I write something.
>> [...]  But if gnus.texi is split into 10 to 15 files, it will be
>> quite troublesome.
>>
>> I can agree with splitting if it is very useful to users, though.
>
> Additionally, splitting destroys CVS annovate (vc-annotoate).  I also
> see no problem with the size.

This doesn't have to be the result of splitting.  The files may be
'repo-copied' by one of the CVS admins, creating let's say 3 files:

     gnus.texi
     gnus-news.texi
     gnus-email.texi

These files can then be 'trimmed' with a normal commit, and the trimmed
text becomes a changeset of its own.  This way 'cvs annotate' will still
show useful information.

Re: Splitting gnus.texi

[Reiner Steib]

On Sun, Sep 30 2007, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:

> On 2007-09-26 08:07, Reiner Steib <reinersteib+gmane@imap.cc> wrote:
>> Additionally, splitting destroys CVS annovate (vc-annotoate).  I also
>> see no problem with the size.
>
> This doesn't have to be the result of splitting.  The files may be
> 'repo-copied' by one of the CVS admins, creating let's say 3 files:
>
>      gnus.texi
>      gnus-news.texi
>      gnus-email.texi
>
> These files can then be 'trimmed' with a normal commit, and the trimmed
> text becomes a changeset of its own.  This way 'cvs annotate' will still
> show useful information.

... but e.g. "cvs ... co -r v5-10 gnus" will create bogus gnus-*.texi
files.  This is a no-no.

Bye, Reiner.
-- 
       ,,,
      (o o)
---ooO-(_)-Ooo---  |  PGP key available  |  http://rsteib.home.pages.de/

Re: Splitting gnus.texi

[Giorgos Keramidas]

On 2007-09-30 23:34, Reiner Steib <reinersteib+gmane@imap.cc> wrote:
>On Sun, Sep 30 2007, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
>> On 2007-09-26 08:07, Reiner Steib <reinersteib+gmane@imap.cc> wrote:
>>> Additionally, splitting destroys CVS annovate (vc-annotoate).  I also
>>> see no problem with the size.
>>
>> This doesn't have to be the result of splitting.  The files may be
>> 'repo-copied' by one of the CVS admins, creating let's say 3 files:
>>
>>      gnus.texi
>>      gnus-news.texi
>>      gnus-email.texi
>>
>> These files can then be 'trimmed' with a normal commit, and the trimmed
>> text becomes a changeset of its own.  This way 'cvs annotate' will still
>> show useful information.
>
> ... but e.g. "cvs ... co -r v5-10 gnus" will create bogus gnus-*.texi
> files.  This is a no-no.

Indeed, or someone has to go through the 'copies' and delete the tags
which are no longer relevant.  I understand that this is just an "ugly
hack", so let's avoid it if there isn't a very good reason to split
`gnus.texi' :-)

Re: Splitting gnus.texi

[Juri Linkov]

> At least for gnus.texi, I don't see the benefit of splitting.
> It's indeed big, but is not too big to edit with Emacs.  Rather,
> I cannot ignore a disadvantage of splitting it.  I sometimes
> write in it.  Since various Gnus functions are related mutually,
> I frequently check other items concerned when I write something.
> For example, when I write description about nntp, I have to check
> whether my writing does not conflict with descriptions of other
> sections.  When I hesitate whether I should add @vindex for the
> nntp-foo-bar variable, I scan the whole gnus.texi.  I do also it
> when I examine it should be @acronym{NNTP}, @code{nntp}, or NNTP.
> Now I only need to type `C-s nntp' for them.  But if gnus.texi is
> split into 10 to 15 files, it will be quite troublesome.

We can improve C-s to search a collection of files, but this is
not implemented yet.

> I can agree with splitting if it is very useful to users, though.

This is intended for developers.  So if developers think this is
not useful then there is no need to split it.

I proposed splitting only because source files for the Emacs manual are
split into several texi files.  However, I see no clear benefits
of splitting.  Rather we could take the suggestion of Reiner and put
gnus-coding, gnus-news, gnus-faq, gnus, message, sasl, emacs-mime,
pgg and sieve into a new `gnus' subdirectory.

-- 
Juri Linkov
http://www.jurta.org/emacs/

Directory doc/gnus in Emacs CVS (was: Splitting gnus.texi)

[Reiner Steib]

On Wed, Sep 26 2007, Juri Linkov wrote:

>> I can agree with splitting if it is very useful to users, though.
>
> This is intended for developers.  So if developers think this is
> not useful then there is no need to split it.
>
> I proposed splitting only because source files for the Emacs manual are
> split into several texi files.  However, I see no clear benefits
> of splitting.  

Me neither.

> Rather we could take the suggestion of Reiner and put gnus-coding,
> gnus-news, gnus-faq, gnus, message, sasl, emacs-mime, pgg and sieve
> into a new `gnus' subdirectory.

For the record some explanations about these files:

  - gnus*.el are (parts of) core Gnus manuals. 
  
  - Message:(message).         Composing messages.
  - Emacs-MIME:(emacs-mime).   Composing messages; MIME-specific parts.
  
  Both are supposed to be independent from Gnus.  Alas it they are not
  anymore.  emacs-mime is also used by MH-E.  AFAICS, the MH-E manual
  describes the relevant MH-E specific stuff  and has some references to
  the emacs-mime and Gnus manual.
  
  - Sieve:(sieve).             Managing Sieve scripts in Emacs.
  - PGG:(pgg).                 PGP/MIME with Gnus.
  - SASL:(sasl).               SASL authentication in Emacs.
  
  These are independent from Gnus.

It would be fine with me to include those in a separate doc/gnus
directory.  But maybe the authors Simon Josefsson (sieve) and Daiki
Ueno (pgg and sasl) would prefer to have them in doc/misc.

Bye, Reiner.
-- 
       ,,,
      (o o)
---ooO-(_)-Ooo---  |  PGP key available  |  http://rsteib.home.pages.de/

Re: Directory doc/gnus in Emacs CVS

[Bill Wohler]

Reiner Steib <reinersteib+gmane@imap.cc> writes:

> For the record some explanations about these files:
>
>   - gnus*.el are (parts of) core Gnus manuals. 
>   
>   - Message:(message).         Composing messages.
>   - Emacs-MIME:(emacs-mime).   Composing messages; MIME-specific parts.
>   
>   Both are supposed to be independent from Gnus.  Alas it they are not
>   anymore.  emacs-mime is also used by MH-E.  AFAICS, the MH-E manual
>   describes the relevant MH-E specific stuff  and has some references to
>   the emacs-mime and Gnus manual.

Yes, we (MH-E) have some cross-references as you describe. What is the
effect on our cross-references of putting these manuals in a gnus
sub-directory? Would the cross-references still work in both Emacs
22.2 and pre-Emacs 22.2 environments?

Sorry for the long delay, but work and summer activities have kept me away.

-- 
Bill Wohler <wohler@newt.com>  http://www.newt.com/wohler/  GnuPG ID:610BD9AD

Re: Directory doc/gnus in Emacs CVS

[Reiner Steib]

On Sun, Oct 21 2007, Bill Wohler wrote:

> Reiner Steib <reinersteib+gmane@imap.cc> writes:
>
>> For the record some explanations about these files:
>>
>>   - gnus*.el are (parts of) core Gnus manuals. 
>>   
>>   - Message:(message).         Composing messages.
>>   - Emacs-MIME:(emacs-mime).   Composing messages; MIME-specific parts.
>>   
>>   Both are supposed to be independent from Gnus.  Alas it they are not
>>   anymore.  emacs-mime is also used by MH-E.  AFAICS, the MH-E manual
>>   describes the relevant MH-E specific stuff  and has some references to
>>   the emacs-mime and Gnus manual.
>
> Yes, we (MH-E) have some cross-references as you describe. What is the
> effect on our cross-references of putting these manuals in a gnus
> sub-directory? Would the cross-references still work in both Emacs
> 22.2 and pre-Emacs 22.2 environments?

There's no effect because the resulting info files would still be
installed in the standard directory.  It's just about re-organizing
the *.texi files.

Bye, Reiner.
-- 
       ,,,
      (o o)
---ooO-(_)-Ooo---  |  PGP key available  |  http://rsteib.home.pages.de/

Re: Directory doc/gnus in Emacs CVS

[Richard Stallman]

Is it possible to make Emacs-MIME work with M-x mail?

Re: Splitting gnus.texi

[Jay Belanger]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

> It would be good to split gnus.texi into 10 to 15 files
> just because it is so big.  Similar for calc.texi.

Should they then get their own (sub)directories?

Jay

Re: Splitting gnus.texi

[Richard Stallman]

    > It would be good to split gnus.texi into 10 to 15 files
    > just because it is so big.  Similar for calc.texi.

    Should they then get their own (sub)directories?

On reflection, I think they should.  There is a certain amount of
disadvantage to each added subdir of `lisp', but no such disadvantage
attaches to added subdirs of `doc'.

Re: Split man directory

[Kim F. Storm]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

>     Indeed.  But instead of `man', why not use the GNU-standard `doc'?
>     Thus, we will have
>
>       doc/emacs
>       doc/lispref
>       doc/lispintro
>       doc/contrib (for other manuals)
>
I would suggest doc/userman rather than doc/emacs, as all of the manuals
are about emacs one way or another.

> This is fine with me (I agree with the person who said `misc' is better
> than `contrib').

Agree.


> I just wonder whether the added cleanness of creating a directory to
> hold these four dirs outweights the disadvantage of moving them down
> one level.  If there were many of them, such as 8, then it would be
> clearly yes.  With just 4, it might be more annoyance than it is worth.

I don't think so.  I strongly support creating the doc directory.

I also suggest creating doc/manpages and move all the *.1 files
from etc into it (further cleaning up etc).

-- 
Kim F. Storm <storm@cua.dk> http://www.cua.dk

Re: Split man directory

[David Kastrup]

storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) writes:

> Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
>
>>     Indeed.  But instead of `man', why not use the GNU-standard `doc'?
>>     Thus, we will have
>>
>>       doc/emacs
>>       doc/lispref
>>       doc/lispintro
>>       doc/contrib (for other manuals)
>>
> I would suggest doc/userman rather than doc/emacs, as all of the manuals
> are about emacs one way or another.

I find doc/emacs more appropriate since, after all, emacs.info is
generated from the files in that directory.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: Split man directory

[Miles Bader]

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
>> I would suggest doc/userman rather than doc/emacs, as all of the manuals
>> are about emacs one way or another.
>
> I find doc/emacs more appropriate since, after all, emacs.info is
> generated from the files in that directory.

I agree.

-Miles

-- 
`Suppose Korea goes to the World Cup final against Japan and wins,' Moon said.
`All the past could be forgiven.'   [NYT]

Re: Split man directory

[Richard Stallman]

    > I would suggest doc/userman rather than doc/emacs, as all of the manuals
    > are about emacs one way or another.

    I find doc/emacs more appropriate since, after all, emacs.info is
    generated from the files in that directory.

I agree.

Re: Split man directory

[Glenn Morris]

Richard Stallman wrote:

>     I find doc/emacs more appropriate since, after all, emacs.info is
>     generated from the files in that directory.
>
> I agree.

Good, because I just did that. :)

I did the w32 makefiles without being able to test them, so please
could some Windows person check they work.

Re: Split man directory

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org>
> Cc: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>,  angeli@caeruleus.net,  eliz@gnu.org,  emacs-devel@gnu.org,  storm@cua.dk
> Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 01:23:40 -0400
> 
> Richard Stallman wrote:
> 
> >     I find doc/emacs more appropriate since, after all, emacs.info is
> >     generated from the files in that directory.
> >
> > I agree.
> 
> Good, because I just did that. :)
> 
> I did the w32 makefiles without being able to test them, so please
> could some Windows person check they work.

They work, thanks.

Re: Split man directory

[Richard Stallman]

    It's only a directory name, what difference does it make? The "man"
    directory is confusingly named, IMO, because it has nothing to do with
    the traditional Unix "man" directory. It doesn't even contain sources
    for man pages.

Do others agree it would be better to rename this directory?

Re: Split man directory

[Ralf Angeli]

* Richard Stallman (2007-09-04) writes:

>     It's only a directory name, what difference does it make? The "man"
>     directory is confusingly named, IMO, because it has nothing to do with
>     the traditional Unix "man" directory. It doesn't even contain sources
>     for man pages.
>
> Do others agree it would be better to rename this directory?

I do.

-- 
Ralf