This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Final PATCH for Re: IMPORTANT 3.0 PATCH: gcc_release
- To: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- Subject: Re: Final PATCH for Re: IMPORTANT 3.0 PATCH: gcc_release
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 09:11:10 +0100 (BST)
- cc: Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at>, Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, Zack Weinberg <zackw at stanford dot edu>, <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
On 14 Jun 2001, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> BTW, who's going to guarantee that the man-pages as shipped and tagged
> are actually built from the corresponding .texi files? gcc/doc/gcc.1
> in the branch, for one, is out-of-date WRT the texi files in the
> branch, even though I updated it and installed an updated copy last
> time I checked in changes in gcc/doc/invoke.texi.
For the mainline we should consider making "all" depend on
@GENERATED_MANPAGES@ and removing them from CVS. This would mean release
builders also need to have the manpage generation tools installed (perl
5.6.1, or an older perl with more recent podlators). For the branch I was
intending to regenerate gcc.1 and gcov.1 again after I've got some more
cleanups to the .texi files in. (I presume Zack will do cpp.1 when
installing the rewritten cpp manual.) If we hear from the FSF about what
needs doing to relicense the manpages under the GFDL
(http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2001-06/msg00363.html) then they'd need
to be regenerated again.
--
Joseph S. Myers
jsm28@cam.ac.uk