From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-92231-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 23492 invoked by alias); 18 Jun 2012 02:53:20 -0000
Received: (qmail 23481 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Jun 2012 02:53:18 -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 mtaout21.012.net.il (HELO mtaout21.012.net.il) (80.179.55.169)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 02:53:03 +0000
Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout21.012.net.il by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0M5S00300L5LA400@a-mtaout21.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 05:53:01 +0300 (IDT)
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.210.75]) by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0M5S00365LCD7760@a-mtaout21.012.net.il>; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 05:53:01 +0300 (IDT)
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 02:53:00 -0000
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, doc]: Rename Index node to prevent file collision
In-reply-to: <CANLjY-kbm17+7O5cWYsR09u2dnMw_Y7f1ifweamXVFr3GF9Oiw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Hope <michael.hope@linaro.org>
Cc: brobecker@adacore.com, joseph@codesourcery.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Message-id: <83lijle3fu.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <4FD94EC0.1000009@linaro.org> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1206141505070.24877@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <83ehphyhdn.fsf@gnu.org> <CANLjY-nrPVBk1RM7gOo4yhvzFd+agB9Xs=kUAMUJna0LP-voZQ@mail.gmail.com> <20120614220037.GO18729@adacore.com> <83txydf2nj.fsf@gnu.org> <CANLjY-kbm17+7O5cWYsR09u2dnMw_Y7f1ifweamXVFr3GF9Oiw@mail.gmail.com>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2012-06/txt/msg00564.txt.bz2

> From: Michael Hope <michael.hope@linaro.org>
> Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 11:26:04 +1200
> Cc: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>, joseph@codesourcery.com, 
> 	gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> 
> Changing the node name works around a tools problem and makes the
> output the same for all hosts.

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.

> I agree that 'Index' is more natural than 'GDB Index'.  How about
> matching GCC, and call it the 'Concept Index' instead?

(I wouldn't take example from GCC in any documentation-related area,
if you catch my drift.  I can never find anything there.  I hope the
GDB manual is better.)

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".