From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3613 invoked by alias); 11 Oct 2009 23:25:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 3598 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Oct 2009 23:25:41 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 11 Oct 2009 23:25:38 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 817022BACA4; Sun, 11 Oct 2009 19:25:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id ZrKN2l41oZsM; Sun, 11 Oct 2009 19:25:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 346932BAC9B; Sun, 11 Oct 2009 19:25:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1D9CDF589F; Sun, 11 Oct 2009 16:25:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 23:25:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] gdb: gdb.1 - order options alphabetically in manual page Message-ID: <20091011232530.GG5272@adacore.com> References: <87hbvct24x.fsf@jondo.cante.net> <20090910010821.GG20694@adacore.com> <20090910013154.GA4244@caradoc.them.org> <20090910225202.GN20694@adacore.com> <83sket299x.fsf@gnu.org> <20090911231747.GS20694@adacore.com> <834or81s46.fsf@gnu.org> <20090912183504.GV20694@adacore.com> <20091011212237.GA28922@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20091011212237.GA28922@caradoc.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-10/txt/msg00219.txt.bz2 > > OK. I've sent RMS an email aobut this. > > Did you ever hear back about this question? Yes I did. You were right, I believe, as order in this case is not copyrightable. However, the change introduced other changes which were actually not OK, so I pointed them out. We never heard back from the author since :-(. -- Joel