From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24480 invoked from network); 3 Dec 1999 15:36:40 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 3 Dec 1999 15:36:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 15983 invoked by alias); 3 Dec 1999 15:36:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 8881 Received: (qmail 15976 invoked from network); 3 Dec 1999 15:36:33 -0000 Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 10:36:25 -0500 From: Clint Adams To: Bart Schaefer Cc: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk Subject: Re: PATCH: Previous zsh.yo.in patch wasn't good enough Message-ID: <19991203103625.B26541@dman.com> References: <991203151631.ZM18044@candle.brasslantern.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i In-Reply-To: <991203151631.ZM18044@candle.brasslantern.com>; from schaefer@candle.brasslantern.com on Fri, Dec 03, 1999 at 03:16:31PM +0000 > If you're asking whether we should get rid of zsh.yo.in again so that > zsh.yo is not a generated file, you'll have to ask Clint. I'm just > cleaning up after his patches in 8827 and 8841. It struck me as cleaner/safer to do the substitution in the .yo rather than the .texi, or worse, the .infos, but I don't think I'd object as long as the end result is the same.