From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13268 invoked by alias); 30 Dec 2002 15:56:15 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 13255 invoked from network); 30 Dec 2002 15:56:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO duracef.shout.net) (204.253.184.12) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 30 Dec 2002 15:56:14 -0000 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id gBUFu1q03502; Mon, 30 Dec 2002 09:56:01 -0600 Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 07:56:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200212301556.gBUFu1q03502@duracef.shout.net> To: neroden@twcny.rr.com, phil@jaj.com Subject: Re: toplevel doc, first draft Cc: binutils@sources.redhat.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00336.txt.bz2 There is a list of standard targets in "info make", node "standard targets for users". I think it would be fine to say: "the standard targets (all, install, info, et cetera)" as documented in 'info make', node 'standard targets for users'". People are very inductive and love examples, and then you can point to an authoritative list. I read all the notes. They struck me as great notes that need preservation, but they could use more narrative to tie them all together. But as long as they are accurate then any docs are fine with me. My two cents. Michael C