duplicate files: gpl.texi and doclicense.texi

duplicate files: gpl.texi and doclicense.texi

[Miles Bader]

In the current CVS there are now two duplicated files:

   doc/emacs/doclicense.texi
   doc/misc/doclicense.texi                                                        

   doc/emacs/gpl.texi
   doc/misc/gpl.texi                                                               

Wouldn't it be better to have these only in one place (in doc/, for
instance, or just keep the copies in doc/misc/ and include them from
emacs/)?

Thanks,

-Miles
-- 
Would you like fries with that?

Re: duplicate files: gpl.texi and doclicense.texi

[David Kastrup]

Miles Bader <miles.bader@necel.com> writes:

> In the current CVS there are now two duplicated files:
>
>    doc/emacs/doclicense.texi
>    doc/misc/doclicense.texi                                                        
>
>    doc/emacs/gpl.texi
>    doc/misc/gpl.texi                                                               
>
> Wouldn't it be better to have these only in one place (in doc/, for
> instance, or just keep the copies in doc/misc/ and include them from
> emacs/)?

Having them in doc and using -I .. in the makeinfo invocations in the
subdirectories sounds like the best course to me.

More flexible than actually changing the include statements in the
source files in case someone wants to compile parts of the docs
standalone.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: duplicate files: gpl.texi and doclicense.texi

[Michael Albinus]

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

>> In the current CVS there are now two duplicated files:
>>
>>    doc/emacs/doclicense.texi
>>    doc/misc/doclicense.texi                                                        
>>
>>    doc/emacs/gpl.texi
>>    doc/misc/gpl.texi                                                               
>>
>> Wouldn't it be better to have these only in one place (in doc/, for
>> instance, or just keep the copies in doc/misc/ and include them from
>> emacs/)?
>
> Having them in doc and using -I .. in the makeinfo invocations in the
> subdirectories sounds like the best course to me.
>
> More flexible than actually changing the include statements in the
> source files in case someone wants to compile parts of the docs
> standalone.

I second this. tramp.texi is synchronized from Tramp's repository,
where "@include doclicense.texi" works fine. Applying "@include
../doclicense.texi" or something like this would break it there.

Best regards, Michael.