On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 08:26:06PM +0300, Nikodemus Siivola wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Robert Strandh wrote:
> >but the web page says the manual is in Texinfo, and there is no HTML
> >version in the binary distribution.
> "Oops." ...it seems that the script used to package up the binary
> distribution doesn't know about the newfangled TexInfo manual. Thanks for
> the heads up.
Actually, I started releasing the HTML stuff separately from the
binary distribution, partly on the theory that the old DocBook build
process required a toolchain that many people punted on installing, so
that even people who built the executable from source, and thus didn't
need the binary distribution, might want the HTML distribution.
(Then I created confusion by neglecting to update the claims in the
I don't know whether it's still a good idea to have the HTML stuff in
a separate package. I think there's still a case for it, e.g. because
the HTML is machine-neutral while the binaries are not, but the case
is no longer as strong as back in DocBook days.
(And of course whether or not the packaging changes, if the
documentation describes the packaging it should describe it
> Since next release is only a couple of weeks ahead, does it make sense to
> put up a temporary doc tarball for 0.8.13? The script needs to be fixed in
> time for 0.8.14 anyaways.
Unless I'm misunderstanding something, this was already done by my
ordinary routine at 0.8.13 release time: sbcl-0.8.13-html.tar.bz2,
created by the html-distribution.sh script.
William Harold Newman <william.newman@...>
"I am the Dungeon Master for an all-economists' Dungeons and Dragons game."
PGP key fingerprint 85 CE 1C BA 79 8D 51 8C B9 25 FB EE E0 C3 E5 7C