This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the newlib project.
Re: [Patch, Newlib/Libm] Avoid index.html and Index.html file name clash on platform like windows
- From: Jeff Johnston <jjohnstn at redhat dot com>
- To: newlib at sourceware dot org
- Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 12:40:34 -0500 (EST)
- 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>
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.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Corinna Vinschen" <email@example.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 6, 2013 7:53:54 AM
Subject: Re: [Patch, Newlib/Libm] Avoid index.html and Index.html file name clash on platform like windows
On Nov 6 11:05, Terry Guo wrote:
> 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
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
Note the "Index" in the unnumbered directive. Is that a bug in
libc/libc.texinfo, or should libm/libm.texinfo do the same?