This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [rfa/doc] tex -> texindex -> tex -> texindex -> tex
- From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>
- To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at is dot elta dot co dot il>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 13:59:04 -0500
- Subject: Re: [rfa/doc] tex -> texindex -> tex -> texindex -> tex
- References: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1020121122030.17248A@is>
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>> Noticed that the texinfo 4.0 doco mentions that, when building
>> documentation, the sequence:
>> should be used. The attached does this.
> Which begs a question: why don't we use texi2dvi, like God intended?
> I've seen quite a few documents where the tex/texindex duet is run
> more than 2 times, until the indices converge. Why should we
> second-guess a well-established tool such as texi2dvi?
Lost in history I suspect (I do remember very early on finding texi2dvi
unreliable or nonexistant?).
BTW, how do I get texi2dvi to run pdftex.