This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] Minor change to gdb/doc/agentexpr.texi
- To: jtc at redback dot com
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Minor change to gdb/doc/agentexpr.texi
- From: Stan Shebs <shebs at apple dot com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 14:09:13 -0800
- Cc: Kevin Buettner <kevinb at cygnus dot com>, gdb-patches at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
- Organization: Core Tools, Apple Computer
- References: <1000216043742.ZM2605@ocotillo.lan> <5mk8k3tv6h.fsf@jtc.redbacknetworks.com>
- Reply-To: shebs at apple dot com
"J.T. Conklin" wrote:
>
> >>>>> "Kevin" == Kevin Buettner <kevinb@cygnus.com> writes:
> Kevin> I've just committed a minor change (see below) to
> Kevin> gdb/doc/agentexpr.texi. Intel does not want us to use "Merced"
> Kevin> in the gdb documentation. And when referring to their next
> Kevin> generation architecture, we must use "IA-64". No other variant
> Kevin> is acceptable.
>
> I have no problem with the change per se, but the implication that
> some other party can dictate what is, and what is not, "acceptable"
> to put in FSF manuals is disturbing.
If folks from Cygnus/Red Hat feel unduly pressured by Intel, I'll be
happy to tell Intel that the FSF's volunteers will do whatever seems
best to them. Sometimes I think Intel gets too used to dictating
details to everybody in sight... In this case, losing the "Merced"
refs is a good idea anyway, because that's just a code name that will
mystify hackers two years from now. (Of course, maybe "IA-64"
will mystify them too, if the whole family is a failure... :-) )
Perhaps we should use "ia64" everywhere in our docs just to remind
Intel they're not in charge here.
Stan