From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-14127-listarch-gdb-patches=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 3585 invoked by alias); 9 Apr 2002 06:53:20 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 3439 invoked from network); 9 Apr 2002 06:53:19 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO is.elta.co.il) (199.203.121.2)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 9 Apr 2002 06:53:19 -0000
Received: from is (is [199.203.121.2])
	by is.elta.co.il (8.9.3/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA10737;
	Tue, 9 Apr 2002 10:51:33 +0300 (IDT)
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 23:53:00 -0000
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Sender: eliz@is
To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
cc: Rob Savoye <rob@welcomehome.org>, Fernando Nasser <fnasser@redhat.com>,
        Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec@shout.net>, drow@mvista.com,
        gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: RFC: KFAIL DejaGnu patch
In-Reply-To: <3CB22901.7000700@cygnus.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1020409104626.10632C-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00348.txt.bz2


On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, Andrew Cagney  wrote:

> > Yes. DocBook is way better than Texinfo at representing technical documents,
> > than texinfo. Texinfo is great for glorified man pages, but SGML is better
> > for technical manuals.
> 
> Why?  Is there a posting somewhere explaining the rationale for this?
> 
>  > While most older GNU projects use texinfo, I see that
> > many newer GNU/Linux projects use DocBook.
> 
> None of the ones that I'm interested in - gcc, binutils, gdb - do.  It 
> is a shame that DejaGnu does as that is the only other tool I really 
> depend on.

I have to agree with Andrew here.  Texinfo is good enough for what we 
need, especially with the new features introduced in the latest release 
4.2, which also supports XML and DocBook output (in addition to HTML, 
Info, and plain text).

On top of that, since Texinfo is the GNU standard documentation system,
a GNU package, especially an important GNU package such as GDB, should be 
honest and use the GNU tools for its documentation.  Otherwise the GNU 
project could be rightfully accused of hypocrisy.