From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16302 invoked by alias); 21 Jun 2012 16:22:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 16286 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Jun 2012 16:22:15 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il (HELO mtaout20.012.net.il) (80.179.55.166) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 16:22:00 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0M5Z00L006P6UJ00@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 19:21:57 +0300 (IDT) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.210.75]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0M5Z00L5V6SLPJ40@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 19:21:57 +0300 (IDT) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 16:22:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [PATCH, doc]: Rename Index node to prevent file collision In-reply-to: To: Michael Hope Cc: brobecker@adacore.com, joseph@codesourcery.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <83ipekd496.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT References: <4FD94EC0.1000009@linaro.org> <83ehphyhdn.fsf@gnu.org> <20120614220037.GO18729@adacore.com> <83txydf2nj.fsf@gnu.org> <83lijle3fu.fsf@gnu.org> X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 X-SW-Source: 2012-06/txt/msg00663.txt.bz2 > From: Michael Hope > Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 16:19:48 +1200 > Cc: brobecker@adacore.com, joseph@codesourcery.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > > I fail to understand why working around by changes in one file > > (gdb.texinfo) is acceptable, but working around in another file > > (makeinfo's source) is not.  I guess I'm missing something. > > GDB is an active project. Even if makeinfo was alive, it's nice to be > able to use the tools already shipped with long term releases like > Ubuntu 10.04. Texinfo is actively maintained as well. It is also nice to be able to generate a manual without having to jump through hoops. It simply sounds unfair that you are asking a project to fix problems of another. > > The problem with your suggestion is that the GDB index is not a > > concept index, it is all the indices lumped into one.  But I would be > > OK if we separate the concept index from the rest, and then we could > > have "Concept Index" and "Command and Variable Index". > > I'd rather not go there as it's a big change for little gain. ??? It's as simple as modifying the "@syncodeindex" directives at the beginning of gdb.texinfo, and then adding 2 @node lines for the two indices, instead of the current one. All the rest will be done by makeinfo. Am I missing something?