Re: Um... what format are Cygwin manpages?

[Christopher Faylor <cgf-no-personal-reply-please at cygwin dot com>]

On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 04:21:13PM -0500, mwoehlke wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 03:41:12PM -0500, mwoehlke wrote:
>>>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>>>On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 03:20:21PM -0500, mwoehlke wrote:
>>>>>Anyway, if it turns out I have to patch an info file, then I guess I'm 
>>>>>stuck doing that. Assuming anyone on newlib pays attention to me. So 
>>>>>far, zilch.
>>>>Yes, you definitely have to *patch* the *source* of the documentation 
>>>>that
>>>>you want changed if you want someone to apply it.
>>>I think the point is that I would hope they would accept a flat-out new 
>>>file, if it was that major a re-working (which IMO it should be; I find 
>>>the layout of glibc's manpage a lot easier to understand, in addition to 
>>>being more accurate).
>>>
>>>But... if I'm to do anything with the texinfo source, I have to *find* 
>>>it first. Sigh. I am losing enthusiasm for this project.
>>
>>Come on, mwoehlke, you know the drill by now.  It isn't that hard to
>>find the source and you don't get to choose your own method for
>>providing patches.  It's pretty standard to supply patches against
>>source code.
>>
>>I imagine that the source code in question is in libc.info.  The web site
>>for newlib is http://sourceware.org/newlib/ .
>
>I do. You misunderstood :-). (Then again, I didn't specify what I'd 
>done, did I? Shame on me :-).)
>
>What I meant to say was that I went and poked around the web CVS 
>interface at http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/?cvsroot=src 
>and *still* couldn't find it. And... having gone and poked around 
>further, I think you meant "sprintf.def". Whew, for a while I was afraid 
>I was going to have to syn the whole *tree* and use 'find'. :-)
>
>Now... where is "sprintf.def"? :-)
>(Don't worry, I'm still looking for it.)

Actually, on some further digging it is, most likely, in sprintf.c
So, no texinfo editing required.

cgf