Re: [patch+doc] New gdbinit.5 man page

[Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>]

On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 17:11:18 +0100, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> I do not necessarily object, but what would be the purpose of this?
> Why is this better than maintaining man pages in their roff format?

It is in fact Tom's idea to make the man pages in texinfo:
	Re: [patch] gdb_gcore man/help/install [+doc] #2
	http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2011-12/msg00659.html
	Message-ID: <m3obv3mhp8.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
	> We still need an info node for invoking gcore.

But that may have applied only to gcore (/usr/bin/gcore) which currently does
not have its gdb.texinfo description.  You are right gdbinit files are already
described in gdb.texinfo.

But then:
	[patch] gdb_gcore man/help/install [+doc] #2
	http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2011-12/msg00157.html
	Message-ID: <20111206002555.GA12329@host2.jankratochvil.net>
	> From the practical point of view with the goal to generate only the nroff .1
	> format I think the choice is clear from nroff, pod and texinfo.
	> The most simple format for maintenance is pod.  Therefore I did not use
	> texi2pod at all.

nroff is not well writable + maintainable format.  And writing some man pages
(like gdbinit.5) in pod and other man pages (like gdbcore.1) in texinfo seems
to be needlessly complicated to me, then I find texinfo-for-all as the most
simple way to got forward.

I already wrote gcore.1 in nroff, gcore.1 in pod and now gdbinit.5 in texinfo
se we have already looped back while choosing the right format...


Jan