This is the mail archive of the
newlib@sourceware.org
mailing list for the newlib project.
RE: [Patch, Newlib/Libm] Avoid index.html and Index.html file name clash on platform like windows
- From: "Terry Guo" <terry dot guo at arm dot com>
- To: "'Corinna Vinschen'" <vinschen at redhat dot com>
- Cc: <newlib at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 21:41:29 +0800
- Subject: RE: [Patch, Newlib/Libm] Avoid index.html and Index.html file name clash on platform like windows
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <000001ceda9d$0e0a9be0$2a1fd3a0$ at arm dot com> <20131106125354 dot GA2611 at calimero dot vinschen dot de> <2044658872 dot 19857617 dot 1383759634352 dot JavaMail dot root at redhat dot com> <000801cedb7b$162e5a80$428b0f80$ at arm dot com> <20131107114815 dot GA5749 at calimero dot vinschen dot de>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: newlib-owner@sourceware.org [mailto:newlib-
> owner@sourceware.org] On Behalf Of Corinna Vinschen
> Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 7:48 PM
> To: newlib@sourceware.org
> Subject: Re: [Patch, Newlib/Libm] Avoid index.html and Index.html file name
> clash on platform like windows
>
> On Nov 7 13:34, Terry Guo wrote:
> > > > On Nov 6 11:05, Terry Guo wrote:
> > > > > Hello,
> > > > >
> > > > > When I copy Newlib built on Ubuntu to my Windows machine which
> > > > > is case insensitive, I ran into this filename clash issue. I
> > > > > checked some other GNU projects like Binutils and found they
> > > > > already rename the node Index to something else like "AS Index".
> > > > > This patch intends to solve same issue using same approach by
> > > > > rename Index to "Libm Index". Tested and it works. Is it ok?
> > > >
> > > > I think so, but I'm not a texinfo expert. I noticed that the
> > > > equivalent lines in libc/libc.texinfo are:
> > > >
> > > > * Library Index::
> > > >
> > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > @node Library Index
> > > > @unnumbered Index
> > > >
> > > > Note the "Index" in the unnumbered directive. Is that a bug in
> > > > libc/libc.texinfo, or should libm/libm.texinfo do the same?
>
> > > Jeff Johnston wrote:
> > > > I think it is fine in libc and libm should probably do the same.
> > > > The Index chapter in libc should not be a numbered chapter. The
> > > > node refers to it properly.
> > > >
> > > > From the texinfo documentation on @unnumbered/@appendix:
> > > >
> > > > "Use the @unnumbered command to start a chapter-level element
> that
> > > > appears without chapter numbers of any kind. Use the @appendix
> > > command
> > > > to start an appendix that is labeled by letter (âAâ, âBâ, â)
> > > > instead of by number; appendices are also at the chapter level of
> structuring."
> > > >
> > > > "Write an @appendix or @unnumbered command at the beginning of a
> > > line
> > > > and follow it on the same line by the title, just as with @chapter.
> > > >
> > > > -- Jeff J.
> > >
> > > Thank you guys for your comments. I now updated the patch and rerun
> > > the test. No problem found. Is it OK now?
> > > [...]
>
> Uh, sorry guys, but you seem to have both misunderstood me. What I was
> up to is the fact that the @unnumbered entry in libc.texinfo is
> *not* "Library Index", but only "Index". My question was about this point.
> What's right for the @unnumbered entry, just "Index" as in libc.texinfo or
> ""Library Index" as Terry proposed now?
>
>
You are right and this time I saw the difference. In libc.texinfo we have:
@node Library Index
@unnumbered Index
I think the second line should be @unnumbered Library Index. The word "Library" is missed here. In this file, there is no node named Index.
BR,
Terry