Re: Re: [UnixOS2] libc

Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 06:26:37AM +0200, Andreas Buening wrote:

[snip]


> > The docs can be handled later. I've just looked at some of the Makefile.
> > At least the hardcoded paths have to be changed. Opinions?
> 
> The principal lesson of software development is that if nobody
> *forces* docs and source to be syncronized, they won't be. :-( It is
> crucial to have docs as close to the source as possible.  [With
> `literate programming' as the extreme point.]
> 
> So please: no "docs later" approach.

Sure. I meant it's not necessary to create a doc subdirectory
before Adrian goes on holiday. It would make sense to support
manpages than just .inf files so we would need a fundamental
change in the current doc directory (there seems to be just
source for .inf files). What is the optimal input file format
if we want manpages, .inf and .html files?


Bye,
Andreas