Re: 'info os' additions again

[Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>]

> 1. What to do with the submitted patch?  ("info os" or "info linux"
> or something else)
> 
> 2. What policy to set for the future?

It's kind of hard for me to feel confident in a general comment
without having really looked at the discussion, but generally
speaking, I tend to favor per-feature command rather than per-
platform commands. I'm sure some features are going to be very
obviously specific to some targets, and it might make sense
in those cases to use target-specific commands, but I would tend
to go with per-feature command, possibly with a way to ask the
debugger whether the feature is available or not.

> 3. Change existing info commands to conform to a policy, or allow
> inconsistencies for the sake of backward compatibility?

I think compatibility is important.  We might want to transition
the current commands in terms of the implementation, but we will
probably need to keep the old commands around for a while, possibly
as aliases. We could also consider progressive deprecation, with
a grace period during which the use of the command triggers a warning
with a note mentioning the new command that replaces the deprecated
one.

-- 
Joel