From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23547 invoked by alias); 21 Aug 2014 14:26:38 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 23534 invoked by uid 89); 21 Aug 2014 14:26:37 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 14:26:36 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s7LEQQr9028999 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 21 Aug 2014 10:26:26 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s7LEQNYl023679; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 10:26:23 -0400 Message-ID: <53F6018E.7020302@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 14:26:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mike Frysinger , Eli Zaretskii CC: Joel Brobecker , dje@google.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, monaka@monami-software.com Subject: Re: [doc] Avoid conflicts between gdb and cross-gdb. References: <20140806213412.GD4881@adacore.com> <8361i4nw49.fsf@gnu.org> <1554189.EX2Nlz1ClI@vapier> In-Reply-To: <1554189.EX2Nlz1ClI@vapier> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2014-08/txt/msg00480.txt.bz2 On 08/08/2014 07:19 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Thu 07 Aug 2014 18:43:34 Eli Zaretskii wrote: >>> (1) Should we support out of the box distinct targets to be installed >>> at the same prefix? >>> (2) Should the name of some of those files match the name of >>> the executable? >>> >>> For (1), I'm leaning towards a "not necessary", but we can perhaps >>> find a middle ground. I don't know the various defaults to really >>> help making a decision without spending some time to look at it. >>> Either way, I have a fairly neutral opinion, so I am happy following >>> the group. >>> >>> For (2), I thought that for the man page, and (to some degree, since >>> I know little about info) the "info" page as well. But again, >>> I don't really have much of opinion on that. >> >> But "info FOO" does not mean "show me the file FOO", it means "show me >> the manual whose DIR entry is FOO". (Although the stand-alone Info >> reader falls back to the file interpretation if it doesn't find FOO in >> the DIR menu.) >> >> And the Info system doesn't really support more than one manual for >> the same tool anyway. >> >> So I think, unlike the man pages, the Info manual should not be >> renamed. > > yes, you'd actually have to rewrite the base node name so that instead of > identifying itself as "gdb" it'd be "${target}-gdb" (i.e. apply the program > transformation). then doing `info sh4-linux-gnu-gdb` would give you the > correct man page. this matches the man page behavior where you can do `man > sh4-linux-gnu-gdb` and such. Eh, I always assumed this sort of thing is why we write @value{GDBN} all over the manual, and that we were already transforming that, but indeed seems like we aren't. Thanks, Pedro Alves