[doc/gdbint.texinfo] \xdef\manvers{\$Revision: 1.142 $}

[doc/gdbint.texinfo] \xdef\manvers{\$Revision: 1.142 $}

[Andrew Cagney]

gdb/doc/gdbint.texinfo contains:

> \def\$#1${{#1}} % Kluge: collect RCS revision info without $...$
> \xdef\manvers{\$Revision: 1.142 $} % For use in headers, footers too
> {\parskip=0pt

I'm wondering if that should be changed to use gdb/version.in?  I guess 
it really depends on what the purpose of it is.

Anyone know?

	Andrew

Re: [doc/gdbint.texinfo] \xdef\manvers{\$Revision: 1.142 $}

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 23:11:58 -0400
> From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
> 
> gdb/doc/gdbint.texinfo contains:
> 
> > \def\$#1${{#1}} % Kluge: collect RCS revision info without $...$
> > \xdef\manvers{\$Revision: 1.142 $} % For use in headers, footers too
> > {\parskip=0pt
> 
> I'm wondering if that should be changed to use gdb/version.in?

gdb/version.in states the versiion of GDB, not the version of the
manual.

Of course, `manvers' is never used after the above fragment, at least
I couldn't see ;-)

Re: [doc/gdbint.texinfo] \xdef\manvers{\$Revision: 1.142 $}

[Stan Shebs]

Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
> gdb/doc/gdbint.texinfo contains:
> 
> > \def\$#1${{#1}} % Kluge: collect RCS revision info without $...$
> > \xdef\manvers{\$Revision: 1.142 $} % For use in headers, footers too
> > {\parskip=0pt
> 
> I'm wondering if that should be changed to use gdb/version.in?  I guess
> it really depends on what the purpose of it is.
> 
> Anyone know?

Without researching it, I'll guess that this is old junk that Gilmore
added long ago, on the theory that cvs commits would result in a new
version number that could show up in a formatted manual.  Of course,
since it's for TeX only, doesn't help with info files, web pages (the
web not yet having been invented at the time!), etc.

It would be maximally careful to check that the macro isn't secretly
referenced inside texinfo.tex, but other than that I don't know of a
reason not to just whack this.

Stan

Re: [doc/gdbint.texinfo] \xdef\manvers{\$Revision: 1.142 $}

[Andrew Cagney]

> Without researching it, I'll guess that this is old junk that Gilmore
> added long ago, on the theory that cvs commits would result in a new
> version number that could show up in a formatted manual.  Of course,
> since it's for TeX only, doesn't help with info files, web pages (the
> web not yet having been invented at the time!), etc.
> 
> It would be maximally careful to check that the macro isn't secretly
> referenced inside texinfo.tex, but other than that I don't know of a
> reason not to just whack this.



Since neither Eli nor you could find a reason for it, I'm going to wack 
it (real soon now).

	Andrew