|
From: | Amod Mulay |
Subject: | Re: texinfo deftypefn vs deftypefnx on arch linux |
Date: | Sun, 24 Mar 2013 19:52:59 -0400 |
Update:avbm_patch2 might give some errors. I have now pushed the patches to :(should be the first two commits.)
AmodOn Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Robinson, Melvin D <address@hidden> wrote:
I'm interested in trying this. Can you detail out a little more what I'd need to do?
From: address@hidden [address@hidden] on behalf of Amod Mulay [address@hidden]
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 5:46 PM
To: Stefan Husmann
Cc: Octave Maintainers List
Subject: Re: texinfo deftypefn vs deftypefnx on arch linux
I have not synced/pushed the patches to any online repo yet. I have attached them in case you want to test them. you will have to import them using hg import.
Amod
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Stefan Husmann <address@hidden> wrote:
Am 24.03.2013 17:55, schrieb Amod Mulay:Where do you have that patch?
I already have on a patch for the doc. issues. Hope to get it pulled soon.
thanks
Amod
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 3:49 AM, skinduptruk <address@hidden> wrote:
G'day all!
first time post here, i have been lurking in the IRC and finally decided to
try out Octave while getting back into linux via arch linux...
i cloned from hg and after lots of pkg updates via pacman i finally got
octave to build and run (a linux newbie POV of this process might be worth
a
separate write up!). however i did need to roll back my texinfo to version
4 like in this bug report:
http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?38392
i think tex functions are worth learning more about, so this bug was of
interest. i'm no expert in tex, so with little experience in what to look
for, i have not found many clues in the gnu.org help files like:
http://www.gnu.org/software/texinfo/manual/texinfo/html_node/_0040deffnx.html#g_t_0040deffnx
http://ftp.gnu.org/old-gnu/Manuals/texinfo-4.2/html_mono/texinfo.html#Definition%20Commands
in the bug report there is mention of where to find the offending .m files,
but any more ideas on the fix itself? i'm thinking could be something
simple like declaring the deftypefnx in a slightly different place or
different way to achieve a similar final doc output? any extra hints are
welcome...
Thanks,
Kurt.
--
View this message in context:
http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/texinfo-deftypefn-vs-deftypefnx-on-arch-linux-tp4651158.html
Sent from the Octave - Maintainers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |