Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 22:10:00 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: cygwin-doc and newlib
Message-ID: <20020417021000.GA3385@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
References: <20020417020003 DOT 43107 DOT qmail AT web20006 DOT mail DOT yahoo DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20020417020003.43107.qmail@web20006.mail.yahoo.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i

On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 07:00:03PM -0700, Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote:
>In-Reply-To: <20020416031430 DOT GC25464 AT redhat DOT com>
>
>> But, where would the user find the info file?  It isn't in any distribution
>> yet.
>
>OK, the bad news is 
>1. newlib doesn't have any real texinfo documentation.
>   There's headers, for example /oss/src/newlib/libm/libm.texinfo, but
>   the info pages are generated by a 'makedoc' similar to cygwin's 'doctool'
>   except that it produces straight info files--not texinfo. None of the
>   function synopses, for example, are in that file
>   (BTW I don't understand this; isn't the cygwin package cross-compiled?)
>2. The current newlib documentation IS in the distribution; it's in the
>   cygwin package in the files: /usr/info/libc.info*, libm.info
>   In other words you can't get 'info isalpha', you have to do 'info libc' then
>   search for 'isalpha'

Oh, right.  I'm probably including it by default when I package the
cygwin release.

>3. I found an info2man script that works, but does a horrible job. Everything
>   is in one big file ('man libc') and is not properly formatted
>4. Even the GNU stuff that uses texi2man requires
>   special tags like '@c ifman ...blah blah' to get properly formatted man
>   pages.
>
>However, the good news is that since info files are well-formatted it 
>looks like it would be relatively easy to write a script that created 
>separate man pages for each function. But it will take time. So...
>
>> I don't want to be pushy but I would really prefer that you incorporate
>> the newlib stuff via either 1) or 2) (2 preferred).  I foresee confusion
>> otherwise.
>
>I'm not following this. What's the confusion in having a completely new
>package that doesn't effect in any way newlib-man? Later I can add a the 
>newlib stuff and note it in the announcement.

I wanted to have one place where people could "get the cygwin docs".  I
fully expect that if you announce a new cygwin doc package, one of the
first responses will be "I can't find the man page for malloc."

However, given the above observations, I think it makes sense to forget
about this for now.  So, I have no objections to your going back to your
original plan.

cgf