From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id QBInJ8tSuWNmkREAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 07 Jan 2023 06:08:59 -0500 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 9E6E71E112; Sat, 7 Jan 2023 06:08:59 -0500 (EST) Authentication-Results: simark.ca; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; secure) header.d=sourceware.org header.i=@sourceware.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=npOKN1sJ; dkim-atps=neutral X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RDNS_DYNAMIC,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from sourceware.org (ip-8-43-85-97.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 557971E112 for ; Sat, 7 Jan 2023 06:08:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A2A53858D39 for ; Sat, 7 Jan 2023 11:08:58 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 9A2A53858D39 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1673089738; bh=cbhcec5wHrTYY4RBgaIWATG5e5HhxI3pYhoMSBglCcI=; h=Date:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:Subject:References:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From:Reply-To:From; b=npOKN1sJVQO8XImc0qseTuPUvWp7YXmVSLTwt7ILIF4nzFrxbgngwuuG8n+Ln5TIh jGq4btg4BVTJnL+tFsqiKJyFrn+5d/MHtekB5kUGmElWANHH+rAFVTYS4EA0U9SBma fDHabzN0VjuukEQMC5uvddF+I6TgCjkNQQ/lZ3+o= Received: from eggs.gnu.org (eggs.gnu.org [IPv6:2001:470:142:3::10]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5CA613858D33 for ; Sat, 7 Jan 2023 11:08:39 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 5CA613858D33 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pE742-0001In-Ai; Sat, 07 Jan 2023 06:08:38 -0500 Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pE741-0004F4-Lc; Sat, 07 Jan 2023 06:08:37 -0500 Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2023 13:08:56 +0200 Message-Id: <83sfgmsit3.fsf@gnu.org> To: Torbjorn SVENSSON Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: (message from Torbjorn SVENSSON on Sat, 7 Jan 2023 11:52:45 +0100) Subject: Re: Generated GDB documentation have colliding files on a case insensitive files system References: <831qo6u1m0.fsf@gnu.org> <778ba370-2304-bc7f-c160-9adb24c05f9b@foss.st.com> <83y1qesjys.fsf@gnu.org> X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Eli Zaretskii via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" > Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2023 11:52:45 +0100 > CC: > From: Torbjorn SVENSSON > > On 2023-01-07 11:43, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > >> Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2023 10:42:11 +0100 > >> CC: > >> From: Torbjorn SVENSSON > >> > >> Do you see any use of the ~214 redirect pages in the GDB context? > > > > Sorry, I don't understand the question. What do you mean by "see any > > use" in this context? > > I was considering if the redirect files could simply be removed from the > GDB documentation tree or if they are actually used for inter components > references. They are produced by makeinfo, and they are produced for a reason, no? > I'm more or less trying to find the best solution for GDB. > > There is the possibility to rename one of the [qQ]MemTags anchors in the > GDB documentation, but that will also include the alternative name in > the redirect page and it would require all the @xref etc to be updated > to the renamed anchor. > > Even if we get a solution merged in texinfo, it will take years for it > to get activity used, and in the mean while, we are stuck with this > issue in GDB. I still don't want to make any conclusions until the Texinfo discussion is completed. How do you know there's no solution with the existing Texinfo versions?