From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17404 invoked by alias); 9 Apr 2002 14:38:17 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 17397 invoked from network); 9 Apr 2002 14:38:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO darkstar.welcomehome.org) (192.203.188.2) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 9 Apr 2002 14:38:14 -0000 Received: (from rob@localhost) by darkstar.welcomehome.org (8.11.3/8.11.3) id g39EjZh11708; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 08:45:35 -0600 Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 07:38:00 -0000 From: Rob Savoye To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Andrew Cagney , Fernando Nasser , Michael Elizabeth Chastain , drow@mvista.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFC: KFAIL DejaGnu patch Message-ID: <20020409084535.A11086@welcomehome.org> References: <20020408181754.I21238@welcomehome.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: ; from Eli Zaretskii on Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 10:56:21AM +0300 X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00357.txt.bz2 On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 10:56:21AM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > What good is it to have documentation one is unable to modify? "Unable to modify" ? I think you mean unwilling. People modify the DejaGnu manual without problem all the time. Docbook looks alot like HTML... It's easy to modify, produces better output, and used by many GNU projects. I realize texinfo is the standard format for the GNU project, but then again, I'm not supposed to be using Tcl either. :-) Seriously, considering the quality of most of the engineers I've known on the GDB team, learning what little one would know to update a docbook manual is trivial. > So please reconsider the possibility of going back to Texinfo. Since I As an engineer, I've gone through several documentation formats over the last 24 years. Nroff, man pages, texinfo, and now docbook. I'm far from an expert on documentation formats, but I only switched after many, many meetings about this back when we started eCOS. Even Cygnus's own doc team prefered Docbook. (I don't know about RedHats's) Anyway, I see no reason to go backwards. Sorry. If you have to, send me manual updates as text, and I'll merge them in. 99& of the time, nobody ever updates the doc but me anyway. I prefer Docbook, once I got used to it. I haven't been able to get docbook2texi to fully work yet anyway... - rob -