btowc: fix missing file

[gnulib.git] / doc / make-stds.texi

diff --git a/doc/make-stds.texi b/doc/make-stds.texi
index f02dc84..6c83b5d 100644 (file)
--- a/doc/make-stds.texi
+++ b/doc/make-stds.texi
@@ -320,7 +320,7 @@ make DESTDIR=/tmp/stage install
 useful.
 
 If your installation step would normally install
-@file{/usr/local/bin/foo} and @file{/usr/local/lib/libfoo.a}, then an
+@file{/usr/local/bin/foo} and @file{/usr/@/local/@/lib/@/libfoo.a}, then an
 installation invoked as in the example above would install
 @file{/tmp/stage/usr/local/bin/foo} and
 @file{/tmp/stage/usr/local/lib/libfoo.a} instead.
@@ -478,9 +478,11 @@ the same place as @samp{datarootdir}, but we use the two separate
 variables so that you can move these program-specific files without
 altering the location for Info files, man pages, etc.
 
+@c raggedright  (not until next Texinfo release)
 This should normally be @file{/usr/local/share}, but write it as
 @file{$(datarootdir)}.  (If you are using Autoconf, write it as
 @samp{@@datadir@@}.)
+@c end raggedright
 
 The definition of @samp{datadir} is the same for all packages, so you
 should install your data in a subdirectory thereof.  Most packages
@@ -941,11 +943,12 @@ foo.dvi: foo.texi chap1.texi chap2.texi
 @end smallexample
 
 @noindent
-You must define the variable @code{TEXI2DVI} in the Makefile.  It should
-run the program @code{texi2dvi}, which is part of the Texinfo
-distribution.@footnote{@code{texi2dvi} uses @TeX{} to do the real work
-of formatting. @TeX{} is not distributed with Texinfo.}  Alternatively,
-write just the dependencies, and allow GNU @code{make} to provide the command.
+You must define the variable @code{TEXI2DVI} in the Makefile.  It
+should run the program @code{texi2dvi}, which is part of the Texinfo
+distribution.  (@code{texi2dvi} uses @TeX{} to do the real work of
+formatting. @TeX{} is not distributed with Texinfo.)  Alternatively,
+write only the dependencies, and allow GNU @code{make} to provide the
+command.
 
 Here's another example, this one for generating HTML from Texinfo: