Re: http://egcs.cygnus.com/onlinedocs/g77_toc.html

[Jeffrey A Law <law at hurl dot cygnus dot com>]

  In message <19990315223135.24208.qmail@deer>you write:
  > (Specifically for Jeff Law.)
  > 
  > I've noticed some things about the g77 on-line docs:
  > 
  >   -  They aren't immediately updated after a commit of the relevant
  >      sources.  When are they updated, and can I force an update so
  >      I can see the results of changes I make?
No way at the moment.  It's a rather expensive operation to rebuild that
stuff so I didn't want to build it on the fly for each request.   In theory
we should be able to handle it like we do for the wwwdocs stuff, but the
cvswrappers code is pretty dumb and as a result it's not easy to get it
automatically updated at checkin time.


  >   -  They don't have @uref{} links suitably expanded.  (Presumably
  >      texi2html needs updating.)
  >
  >   -  The introductory material, including the disclaimer I recently
  >      introduced, is not evidently accessible.  It's not evident in
  >      the TOC itself or any link in it.  It isn't directly accessible
  >      from the first top-level item listed ("Copying").
  > 
  >      However, from the *second* top-level item -- "Contributors" --
  >      the introductory material can be accessed by following the "first"
  >      or "previous" link.
  > 
  >      I think this has to do with g77.texi using @unnumbered for the
  >      "Copying" and "Contributors" nodes.
  > 
  >      Perhaps some kind of reorganization of this material is appropriate.
  >      Any recommendations?  I'm thinking of a new top-level chapter,
  >      before "Getting Started", that'd contain the "Copying", "Contributors"
  > ,
  >      "Funding", "Funding GNU Fortran", and "Look and Feel" nodes as
  >      sections instead of @unnumbered's and @chapter's.  Would it need
  >      to contain "Introduction" as well, for texi2html to put it somewhere
  >      evident?  That'd make a difference in what to title the new chapter,
  >      which is something I can't figure out offhand.
These sound like texi2html issues -- we're at version 1.51 right now.  Is there
anything newer?