From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22270 invoked by alias); 21 Jun 2012 22:36:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 22029 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Jun 2012 22:36:38 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-we0-f169.google.com (HELO mail-we0-f169.google.com) (74.125.82.169) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 22:36:24 +0000 Received: by wefh52 with SMTP id h52so1016748wef.0 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 15:36:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=AjE/1AdmN7yRphsI7e+D2xTh8iC3E6sNrl/CVpDzbzI=; b=EJ1SQniW9/JfZ9u8td+iF+h0SdhkR8I0Nt+aBn/fNUAR8cs1BhUUHoKCMoF/8sgpya BtCv6g+RdfJKz4ExcTRhD3dWWuNc7jzO4/WrZxznOgESrQA4BN3IP3+bFjuA5KCHQogU khH69aZo+bWOjD7oTpfCe0iBkUbMJAzss5rAQJXqqdl9mhSjf0LEbwyZyDaUDPdjnc8s r2ET33nhynJHxiNoNqnJCLvCEe5Cgd153iEMxWQwUcLZvwS5pJ4y0S3F/B5dP25KDAeP JFyz7k/22rGHLigPxuI+t1DnAiKBOu/Xuk8UjaftFPfbKiyuRu/2UYgUxm+06JxuomWP FPdA== Received: by 10.216.217.135 with SMTP id i7mr14728899wep.218.1340318182998; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 15:36:22 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.180.87.225 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 15:36:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <83ipekd496.fsf@gnu.org> References: <4FD94EC0.1000009@linaro.org> <83ehphyhdn.fsf@gnu.org> <20120614220037.GO18729@adacore.com> <83txydf2nj.fsf@gnu.org> <83lijle3fu.fsf@gnu.org> <83ipekd496.fsf@gnu.org> From: Michael Hope Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 22:36:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH, doc]: Rename Index node to prevent file collision To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: brobecker@adacore.com, joseph@codesourcery.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmnaxUK7Mz/gp5P11TqjinOYplkeRoDBrcYw3yzirQj4dDz0YAkSQSnUojGtlS1aGt3X9jS 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/msg00675.txt.bz2 On 22 June 2012 04:22, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> From: Michael Hope >> Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 16:19:48 +1200 >> Cc: brobecker@adacore.com, joseph@codesourcery.com, gdb-patches@sourcewa= re.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. =A0I guess I'm missing something. >> >> GDB is an active project. =A0Even 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. The last release was four years ago. The list has around five threads a month. The ChangeLog shows recent development by Karl. I'm happy to post a patch to makeinfo similar to http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2012-06/msg00496.html. I'll do that next as another avenue. > =A0It is also nice to be able to > generate a manual without having to jump through hoops. I agree, including being able to cross build the manual for case insensitive systems. > It simply sounds unfair that you are asking a project to fix problems > of another. Yes if there's a need in the community, the problem won't be fixed in a reasonable time in the tool, the work around is benign, and it doesn't cost us down the road. >> > The problem with your suggestion is that the GDB index is not a >> > concept index, it is all the indices lumped into one. =A0But 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. =A0All the rest will be done by > makeinfo. =A0Am I missing something? Sorry, I assumed that we'd have to check and perhaps update each index entry to see that it's in the right category. Your texinfo foo is better than mine - could you post a patch? -- Michael