[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Gnus overrides.texi and WEBHACKDEVEL

From: Ted Zlatanov
Subject: Re: Gnus overrides.texi and WEBHACKDEVEL
Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2011 09:18:37 -0600
User-agent: Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux)

On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 17:12:01 +0200 Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> wrote: 

>> From: Ted Zlatanov <address@hidden>
>> Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2011 08:21:18 -0600
>> Cc: address@hidden
>> Now, overrides.texi is for Gnus manuals overrides: settings we may want
>> to propagate to all our manuals.  So I think it makes sense to have it,
>> just not the way I did it with shell redirection.  I renamed it to
>> gnus-overrides.texi and it can be used for things we want to use in all
>> the Gnus manuals in the future.  I hope that's OK with everyone; if not
>> it's easy enough to pull that include out.

EZ> I don't necessarily see a problem, but I don't understand why you need
EZ> a .texi file for these overrides.  At least the "@set FOO" part of
EZ> those overrides can be easily handled by add -DFOO switch to

It's for general text variables which are awkward in Makefiles,
especially if we need many.  I can see many uses in the Gnus manuals.

EZ> More generally, what is a user supposed to do if she does want to put
EZ> something on gnus-overrides.texi?  That's a versioned file, so "bzr
EZ> status" will show it as modified, and there's still a danger of having
EZ> it committed inadvertently.  How is this better than just modifying
EZ> gnu.texi or any other file directly?

The user wouldn't touch them, they are for the developers.  I guess
"gnus-includes.texi" would be a less confusing name?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]