[slime-devel] [PATCH] slime.texi: fixups for info
Hello, Here are two patches for slime.texi. The first is tiny, and just fixes node references for the new Shortcuts node. The second moves the long passage that had been the contents of the Top node down one level to a node called Introduction, and adds a 3 line overview to the Top node. This is so that info users can see the manual's menu easily from the top of the Top node. These changes don't affect the ps/pdf output. Thanks, Richard
Richard M Kreuter <kreuter@anduril.rutgers.edu> writes:
Here are two patches for slime.texi.
Applied, thanks! Another nice touch would be to have a 'make install' target to put the info file into the main info directory. However, I've never been quite sure how to do this -- different machines seem to want different install directories and expect different arguments to 'install-info'. Does anyone know how to handle this correctly, preferable without resorting to autoconf? -Luke
Luke Gorrie wrote: [...]
I /think/ there are basically two types of install-info, Debian's, and the standard Gnu version, which differ in their arguments, other than that, I think just doing install-info --info-dir=/usr/local/info slime.info works on Debian, whether this ports to other systems, I don't know. -- Lawrence Mitchell <wence@gmx.li>
Lawrence Mitchell <wence@gmx.li> writes:
Right. The Debian and GNU implemmentations are similar, but the Debian one evidently requires a command line option to handle INFO-DIR-SECTION (at least version 1.9.21, which is Debian's stable). GNU install-info handles this automatically, albeit less flexibly. Two patches: the first adds an infodir entry for the manual to the slime.texi. The second adds an install-info and an uninstall-info target, and install and uninstall targets that depend on these respectively. It has been tested with GNU install-info version 4.7 and Debian install-info 1.9.21. Slouching towards autoconf, this introduces a variable, infodir, which probably needs to be configured by the user. Note: the manual and the Makefile probably copyright statements and statements of license. Various scrupulous entities (e.g., Debian) won't distribute any file whose copyrights and license status is unspecified. -- Richard
Richard M Kreuter <kreuter@anduril.rutgers.edu> writes:
Two patches:
Could you please remake the patches with 'cvs diff -u <filename>' and resend? I'm having some trouble applying them.
And sadly we don't even get the satisfaction of mocking them for these policies after that whole SCO debacle. I would like to play within the established rules. Is it sufficient to just put "This file has been placed in the public domain." in a comment at the top, do you know? -Luke
Luke Gorrie <luke@bluetail.com> writes:
Attached. Still two patches.
Note: the manual and the Makefile probably copyright statements and statements of license...
(Oops. Insert the word "need" in there.)
I'd suppose so: Debian, for example, distributes files from CMUCL that have been placed in the public domain. Presumably, Debian is a sufficient example. Statements of authorship might be a good idea, though. -- Richard
Luke Gorrie wrote:
"The author of this program disclaims copyright." Might also need a formal PD dedication, I'm not sure: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/ SQLite & the lemon parser generator are in the PD; see how they do it: http://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html http://www.sqlite.org/cvstrac/getfile/sqlite/tool/lemon.c
-Luke
-Kent ps-IANAL :D
participants (4)
-
Kent R. Spillner -
Lawrence Mitchell -
Luke Gorrie -
Richard M Kreuter