From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31447 invoked by alias); 22 Nov 2002 22:16:23 -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 31430 invoked from network); 22 Nov 2002 22:16:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 Nov 2002 22:16:20 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D645C3E4B; Fri, 22 Nov 2002 17:16:14 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3DDEACAE.4010607@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 14:16:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020824 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jim Blandy Cc: Elena Zannoni , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] doc/Makefile.in install References: <15838.36534.883345.847460@localhost.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg00561.txt.bz2 > I think, at some point in the distant past, it was controversial > whether packages should install their info files by default. I think > that was back when disks were much smaller than they are now. > Nowadays most packages install their info by default, so there's no > reason for GDB not to do so as well. So that's the reason! I knew there was one but couldn't remember what it was. Elena, also note: http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gdb&pr=723 http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gdb&pr=245 http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards_55.html#SEC55 Andrew