From: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
Message-Id: <10301182127.AA13863@clio.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: djasm.txi?
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 15:27:15 -0600 (CST)
In-Reply-To: <7263-Sat18Jan2003221119+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il> from "Eli Zaretskii" at Jan 18, 2003 10:11:20 PM
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2]
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

> > From: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
> > Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 13:46:55 -0600 (CST)
> > 
> > Maybe the file should be moved; does @include work with ../stub/djasm.txi
> > type syntax?
> 
> It should, but I think it's better to use the -I switch to makeinfo.
> That way, we can move the file around at will.

With the current makefile structure I don't see any way to easily do 
-I (the .inf make rule is in the common file makefile.inc).

So should new include files go in their own directories with a ../ type
include?

Should docs for go32-v2, stubify, stubedit, exe2coff be in ../stub ?
Should docs for dxegen be in ../dxe ?