Re: [PATCH, doc]: Rename Index node to prevent file collision

[Michael Hope <michael dot hope at linaro dot org>]

On 22 June 2012 04:22, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
>> From: Michael Hope <michael.hope@linaro.org>
>> Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 16:19:48 +1200
>> Cc: brobecker@adacore.com, joseph@codesourcery.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
>>
>> > I fail to understand why working around by changes in one file
>> > (gdb.texinfo) is acceptable, but working around in another file
>> > (makeinfo's source) is not. ?I guess I'm missing something.
>>
>> GDB is an active project. ?Even if makeinfo was alive, it's nice to be
>> able to use the tools already shipped with long term releases like
>> Ubuntu 10.04.
>
> Texinfo is actively maintained as well.

The last release was four years ago.  The list has around five threads
a month.  The ChangeLog shows recent development by Karl.

I'm happy to post a patch to makeinfo similar to
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2012-06/msg00496.html.  I'll do
that next as another avenue.

> ?It is also nice to be able to
> generate a manual without having to jump through hoops.

I agree, including being able to cross build the manual for case
insensitive systems.

> It simply sounds unfair that you are asking a project to fix problems
> of another.

Yes if there's a need in the community, the problem won't be fixed in
a reasonable time in the tool, the work around is benign, and it
doesn't cost us down the road.

>> > The problem with your suggestion is that the GDB index is not a
>> > concept index, it is all the indices lumped into one. ?But I would be
>> > OK if we separate the concept index from the rest, and then we could
>> > have "Concept Index" and "Command and Variable Index".
>>
>> I'd rather not go there as it's a big change for little gain.
>
> ??? It's as simple as modifying the "@syncodeindex" directives at the
> beginning of gdb.texinfo, and then adding 2 @node lines for the two
> indices, instead of the current one. ?All the rest will be done by
> makeinfo. ?Am I missing something?

Sorry, I assumed that we'd have to check and perhaps update each index
entry to see that it's in the right category.  Your texinfo foo is
better than mine - could you post a patch?

-- Michael