GNU bug report logs - #22543
404 in Manualpage

Previous Next

Full log

Message #14 received at 22543 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Nils Gillmann <niasterisk <at> grrlz.net>
To: Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name>
Cc: 22543 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Alex Kost <alezost <at> gmail.com>
Subject: Re: bug#22543: 404 in Manualpage
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 10:56:05 +0100

Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name> writes:

> On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 02:41:04PM +0100, Nils Gillmann wrote:
>> The manual page
>> https://www.gnu.org/software/guix/manual/html_node/Requirements.html#Requirements
>> 
>> contains a link to
>> 
>> https://www.gnu.org/software/guix/manual/gnutls-guile/Guile-Preparations.html#Guile-Preparations
>> 
>> which give a 404. I am not familiar with what's supposed to be there, a
>> quick search for "gnutls-guile/Guile-Preparations.html" in duckduckgo gives me
>> http://www.gnutls.org/manual/gnutls-guile/Guile-Preparations.html as one
>> of 2 results.
>> 
>> Should I fix the link to this one and send in a patch?
>
> Yes, please!

So you think I should (and can?) fix it, while alex replies:

>> I don't think you can send a patch for this.  According to
>> <https://www.gnu.org/software/guix/manual/>:
>>
>>  (This page generated by the gendocs.sh¹ script.)

>> This "gendocs.sh" uses "texi2html" to convert our texinfo documentation
>> (see "doc/guix.texi" in the guix git repo) to the html page.  In
>> "guix.texi" the link you are talking about is a usual link to the
>> "gnutls-guile" manual.  I didn't look at "texi2html" but I believe by
>> default it just assumes that all the manuals are placed at
>> "www.gnu.org/software/<package>/manual/", so for "external" manuals the
>> generated links are false.  For example, there are also wrong links to
>> Geiser and Magit-Popup manuals.
>>
>> So I think it's a general thing for all generated manuals that are
>> placed on "gnu.org".
>>
>> ¹ http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gnulib.git/plain/build-aux/gendocs.sh
>>
>> -- 
>> Alex

Okay, so I guess it's related to #22651 and it#s not fixable the
way I want to (edit the source), or at least what I would want to
do is not optimal and it should be fixed in some other way.

Didn't look into it yet, but should we follow #22651 for the 404s?
-- 
ng

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.