This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: RFC: KFAIL DejaGnu patch
- From: Rob Savoye <rob at welcomehome dot org>
- To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at is dot elta dot co dot il>
- Cc: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>, Fernando Nasser <fnasser at redhat dot com>, Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec at shout dot net>, drow at mvista dot com, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 08:45:35 -0600
- Subject: Re: RFC: KFAIL DejaGnu patch
- References: <20020408181754.I21238@welcomehome.org> <Pine.SUN.3.91.1020409105157.10632D-100000@is>
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 10:56:21AM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> What good is it to have documentation one is unable to modify?
"Unable to modify" ? I think you mean unwilling. People modify the DejaGnu
manual without problem all the time. Docbook looks alot like HTML... It's
easy to modify, produces better output, and used by many GNU projects.
I realize texinfo is the standard format for the GNU project, but then
again, I'm not supposed to be using Tcl either. :-) Seriously, considering
the quality of most of the engineers I've known on the GDB team, learning
what little one would know to update a docbook manual is trivial.
> So please reconsider the possibility of going back to Texinfo. Since I
As an engineer, I've gone through several documentation formats over the
last 24 years. Nroff, man pages, texinfo, and now docbook. I'm far from
an expert on documentation formats, but I only switched after many,
many meetings about this back when we started eCOS. Even Cygnus's
own doc team prefered Docbook. (I don't know about RedHats's) Anyway,
I see no reason to go backwards. Sorry. If you have to, send me manual
updates as text, and I'll merge them in. 99& of the time, nobody ever
updates the doc but me anyway. I prefer Docbook, once I got used to it.
I haven't been able to get docbook2texi to fully work yet anyway...
- rob -