From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31129 invoked by alias); 21 Jan 2002 18:59:14 -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 31019 invoked from network); 21 Jan 2002 18:59:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.cygnus.com) (24.114.42.213) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 21 Jan 2002 18:59:05 -0000 Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.cygnus.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB3B03F0E; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 13:59:04 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3C4C64F8.10607@cygnus.com> Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 10:59:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:0.9.7) Gecko/20020103 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa/doc] tex -> texindex -> tex -> texindex -> tex References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-01/txt/msg00657.txt.bz2 > On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > >> Noticed that the texinfo 4.0 doco mentions that, when building >> documentation, the sequence: >> >> tex >> texindex >> tex >> texindex >> tex >> >> should be used. The attached does this. > > > Which begs a question: why don't we use texi2dvi, like God intended? > I've seen quite a few documents where the tex/texindex duet is run > more than 2 times, until the indices converge. Why should we > second-guess a well-established tool such as texi2dvi? Lost in history I suspect (I do remember very early on finding texi2dvi unreliable or nonexistant?). BTW, how do I get texi2dvi to run pdftex. Andrew