From: Martin Str|mberg <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
Message-Id: <200005291642.SAA20621@father.ludd.luth.se>
Subject: Re: uname diff in cvs
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000529103849.24119J-100000@is> from Eli Zaretskii at "May 29, 2000 10:40:06 am"
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 18:42:14 +0200 (MET DST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL54 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

According to Eli Zaretskii:
> > @findex uname
> > Ability to detect which CPU in @file{uname.c}.
> 
> Please refer to @code{uname}, not to its file name; the latter is not
> useful for users which usually don't know the names of the files.  And
> it's better to make the index entries more specific, for example:
> 
>   @findex uname AT r{, CPU type detection}
> 
> This prevents a situation where there are several index entries all
> saying "uname" which refer to different changes, leaving the user
> wondering which one does she want to read.  (The @r thing is to force
> everything but the function name to be printed in the normal font, as
> opposed to the typewriter font which is the default for the @findex
> entries.)
> 
> I'd also suggest to make the change description more clear, like
> "Ability to report the exact CPU type..." or something similar.

Ok. I cvs added an empty wc204.txi and now I get a diff (cut and paste
this time):
Index: djgpp/src/docs/kb/wc204.txi
===================================================================
RCS file: wc204.txi
diff -N wc204.txi
*** /dev/null   Tue May  5 16:32:27 1998
--- wc204.txi   Mon May 29 12:35:39 2000
***************
*** 0 ****
--- 1,7 ----
+ @node Changes in 2.04, , Changes in 2.03, What Changed
+ @section Changes in 2.04
+
+ Here is a list of changes from DJGPP V2.03 to V2.04.
+
+ @findex uname AT r{, CPU type detection}
+ Ability to report the exact CPU type in @code{uname}.


The rest as before. Any more suggestions? (Waiting for cvs commit
ahead...)


Right,

							MartinS