From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1946 invoked by alias); 8 Apr 2002 23:34:25 -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 1939 invoked from network); 8 Apr 2002 23:34:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 8 Apr 2002 23:34:24 -0000 Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C2B63EF8; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 19:34:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3CB22901.7000700@cygnus.com> Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 16:34:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/20020328 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rob Savoye Cc: Fernando Nasser , Michael Elizabeth Chastain , drow@mvista.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFC: KFAIL DejaGnu patch References: <200204051753.g35HrUn23328@duracef.shout.net> <3CAE4182.BED29D4D@redhat.com> <20020407173534.B16561@welcomehome.org> <3CB1B7E3.799AC665@redhat.com> <20020408100922.C3523@welcomehome.org> <3CB203BC.2010405@cygnus.com> <20020408172834.B21238@welcomehome.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00330.txt.bz2 > > Yes. DocBook is way better than Texinfo at representing technical documents, > than texinfo. Texinfo is great for glorified man pages, but SGML is better > for technical manuals. Why? Is there a posting somewhere explaining the rationale for this? > While most older GNU projects use texinfo, I see that > many newer GNU/Linux projects use DocBook. None of the ones that I'm interested in - gcc, binutils, gdb - do. It is a shame that DejaGnu does as that is the only other tool I really depend on. enjoy, Andrew