http://sources.redhat.com/gdb/

http://sources.redhat.com/gdb/

[Andrew Cagney]

FYI,

I've finished overhalling it (ignoring a few cleanups).  If you find a 
broken link or the like, just check out:

	cvs -d :ext:sources.redhat.com:/cvs/gdb htdocs

and tweek.

	Andrew

Re: http://sources.redhat.com/gdb/

[Andrew Cagney]

> FYI,
> 
> I've finished overhalling it (ignoring a few cleanups).  If you find a broken link or the like, just check out:
> 
>     cvs -d :ext:sources.redhat.com:/cvs/gdb htdocs
> 
> and tweek.

Just FYI,

My current list of sugested cleanups:

	o	[download|cvs] or [download] [cvs] from ChrisF.
		Ok with me.  Any one got a preference?
		Should there be separate gdb/download and
		gdb/cvs directories? Probably not.  Hmm, then again
		it would allow a better separation of CVS(1)
		and official FTP.

	o	all the old stray assignment forms
		(Kevin, JimB will have the answer to
		your question but he is busy right now.
		It should be on the pages somewhere)

	o	rationalize the directories: documentation,
		onlinedocs, papers and talks.

	o	find out if someone has tried exploder
		along with other browsers (and a few WWW
		checkers) on it.  I've tried mozilla,
		netscape and lynx.

	o	simplify further the update process,
		a Makefile or something in CVS, er
		mumble muble, security risk, mumble,

	o	re-audit and again try to reduce
		the number of ``Red Hat''s :-)


Andrew

(1) I can see the day when ``cvs'' will be a link to the ``subversion'' 
repository ... :-)

Re: http://sources.redhat.com/gdb/

[Andrew Cagney]

>     o    [download|cvs] or [download] [cvs] from ChrisF.
>         Ok with me.  Any one got a preference?
>         Should there be separate gdb/download and
>         gdb/cvs directories? Probably not.  Hmm, then again
>         it would allow a better separation of CVS(1)
>         and official FTP.

I added [cvs] pointing to download.  I almost created a ``cvs'' 
directory but then rememberd DOS.

I've also tweeked the fish so it points to the relevant news article so 
people can learn a little about its history.

CGD wrote:
> I don't know what the exact protocol is for announcing minor changes,
> so i'll just note that I fixed the 'download' link in the 5.1
> announcement.  (it was pointing into the void.)

I've no idea.  I know JimK made a decision that there was no ChangeLog. 
  Perhaps mention tweeks you think important.  Looking around, there are 
plenty of other "/.." links around :-(

Thanks for fixing it.
	Andrew

Re: http://sources.redhat.com/gdb/

[cgd]

ac131313@cygnus.com ("Andrew Cagney") writes:
> I've finished overhalling it (ignoring a few cleanups).  If you find a 
> broken link or the like, just check out:
> 
> 	cvs -d :ext:sources.redhat.com:/cvs/gdb htdocs
> 
> and tweek.

I don't know what the exact protocol is for announcing minor changes,
so i'll just note that I fixed the 'download' link in the 5.1
announcement.  (it was pointing into the void.)


cgd
--
Index: index.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gdb/htdocs/index.html,v
retrieving revision 1.102
diff -c -r1.102 index.html
*** index.html	2001/08/20 03:24:33	1.102
--- index.html	2001/08/22 01:10:17
***************
*** 83,89 ****
  
  <dd> The branch tag is <tt>gdb_5_1-2001-07-29-branch</tt>.<br>
  Snapshots of the branch are available for <a
! href="/download">download</a> from the snapshots directory.<br>
  Alternativly, the branch can be checked out using the CVS command:
  
  <pre>
--- 83,89 ----
  
  <dd> The branch tag is <tt>gdb_5_1-2001-07-29-branch</tt>.<br>
  Snapshots of the branch are available for <a
! href="download">download</a> from the snapshots directory.<br>
  Alternativly, the branch can be checked out using the CVS command:
  
  <pre>