From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20703 invoked by alias); 26 Mar 2004 17:53:09 -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 20695 invoked from network); 26 Mar 2004 17:53:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO aragorn.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.23) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 26 Mar 2004 17:53:08 -0000 Received: from zaretski (pns03-209-174.inter.net.il [80.230.209.174]) by aragorn.inter.net.il (MOS 3.4.5-GR) with ESMTP id CQJ06756; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 19:52:56 +0200 (IST) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 17:53:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: Andrew Cagney Message-Id: <7137-Fri26Mar2004195020+0300-eliz@gnu.org> CC: carlton@kealia.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <40643B68.8050805@gnu.org> (message from Andrew Cagney on Fri, 26 Mar 2004 09:17:12 -0500) Subject: Re: GDB 6.1 "frozen" Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <406361B3.5060308@gnu.org> <406375ED.1020708@gnu.org> <2914-Fri26Mar2004115305+0300-eliz@gnu.org> <40643B68.8050805@gnu.org> X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg00669.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 09:17:12 -0500 > From: Andrew Cagney > > Long standing todo item: GCC has a single copy of these and a few other > files in the doc/ directory. The README, INSTALL, ... files are all > generated from a single source. Ah, that one... Yes, I know about GCC's setup, but I cannot say that I see how it is so immensely useful to justify any significant effort in doing something similar in GDB. IMO, there's nothing wrong with maintaining a couple of text files. Also, it is my personal opinion is that text files produced by makeinfo look awkward, almost ugly, and therefore doing what GCC does is only justified for large documents that need to be distributed in Info and other formats as well as in plain text. Like a FAQ, for example. So I'm not going to work on that or encourage others to do it. But if someone steps forward and does the job, I won't object to using it if the results are good and generally useful. > At present there is a lot of redundancy. What redundancy is that? > We should also throw open the question of how to best present release > information such as our list of known to work systems, our most serious > problems, known bugs, perhaphs even some test results (just, please not > today and not for 6.1 :-). By all means, let's discuss it whenever you are ready. It's not urgent, so no need to start that now.