[email@example.com: Re: Bug#139569: patch: info patch doesn't lead to the info docs (fwd)]
Moving this here to reach the relevant people...
----- Forwarded message from Tom Tromey <firstname.lastname@example.org> -----
To: Paul Eggert <email@example.com>
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com,
Michael Fedrowitz <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Bug#139569: patch: info patch doesn't lead to the info docs (fwd)
From: Tom Tromey <email@example.com>
>>>>> "Paul" == Paul Eggert <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
Paul> The Automake-generated makefile does detect Debian correctly,
Paul> but when it finds Debian it simply refuses to invoke
Paul> install-info. On my Debian host, this causes the resulting info
Paul> directory to not know about the just-installed files, and that
Paul> is the problem that originally prompted Debian bug 139569.
Paul> It appears that Debian uses different conventions for
Paul> install-info. I don't know what the Debian conventions are.
Paul> Perhaps Automake could be modified to know about them, but that
Paul> would require someone with Debian install-info expertise.
I sympathize with the Debian developers, since their install-info came
first. However, Automake supports the GNU install-info since Automake
is a GNU package, and supporting other GNU packages is one of our
I looked on my Debian box and it looks like the GNU install-info isn't
even installed. I expected it to be part of the texinfo package, but
it isn't there.
Maybe it could be installed as `ginstall-info'? (I'd prefer the
Debian one be renamed or removed, but I'm guessing that is unlikely,
given that it hasn't happened yet.) If this were done then automake
could search for it first.
That would let people who download and install GNU packages by hand
(e.g., I want the new fooutils in /usr/local) get the info pages
installed correctly, but it also wouldn't conflict with existing
Debian scripts and the like.
I'd also accept a clean patch to support the Debian install-info
program. However, I think it is important that it be fairly
compatible from the upstream package maintainer's point of view: use
the dir info stuff from the info file, etc.
If someone is interested in this, now would be a good time to do it.
We're getting ready to do a 1.6.1 bug fix release.
----- End forwarded message -----
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org