Re: Documentation generation patch [Take 2]

["Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>]

On Fri, 11 May 2001, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:

> Did you mean to volunteer to perform this split? ;-) If so, you certainly
> can consider it pre-approved.

If Theodore Papadopoulo doesn't want to do this, yes.

> Mark, you mentioned a docs or doc directory -- which name would you prefer
> and should this be a subdir of gcc or directly under the top level? I'm
> asking because I'm considering to add the new texinfo installation docs
> there, as a first step ASAP.

We need to resolve the directory naming and where this fits into the
Makefile rules.  Presumably the info files get generated into the source
doc directory?  Do manpages go there as well?  Do front end manuals remain
for now under lang.dvi?  Could someone familiar with the configure/build
system add ps and pdf and lang.ps and lang.pdf targets (maybe html ones as
well) to provide for building these formats from the makefiles, even if
the actual support for building them doesn't go in immediately?

We need to work out the order for different work:

* The existing patches from this thread.

* Creating the doc directory and moving things to it.

* The new install manual.

* Splitting up the existing gcc.texi.

* Supporting more output file formats.

Since other C++ documentation is in the main manual, I think the
libstdc++-v3 porting manual ought to be part of it - as is, it's an almost
invisible manual part that doesn't get installed.

Tangentially related: is there an official position for 3.0 on whether
non-GNU make is or is not supported, and whether building in the source
directory is or is not supported?

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
jsm28@cam.ac.uk