This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: RFC: KFAIL DejaGnu patch
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at is dot elta dot co dot il>
- To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>
- Cc: Rob Savoye <rob at welcomehome dot org>, 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 10:51:32 +0300 (IDT)
- Subject: Re: RFC: KFAIL DejaGnu patch
On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> > Yes. DocBook is way better than Texinfo at representing technical documents,
> > than texinfo. Texinfo is great for glorified man pages, but SGML is better
> > for technical manuals.
>
> Why? Is there a posting somewhere explaining the rationale for this?
>
> > While most older GNU projects use texinfo, I see that
> > many newer GNU/Linux projects use DocBook.
>
> None of the ones that I'm interested in - gcc, binutils, gdb - do. It
> is a shame that DejaGnu does as that is the only other tool I really
> depend on.
I have to agree with Andrew here. Texinfo is good enough for what we
need, especially with the new features introduced in the latest release
4.2, which also supports XML and DocBook output (in addition to HTML,
Info, and plain text).
On top of that, since Texinfo is the GNU standard documentation system,
a GNU package, especially an important GNU package such as GDB, should be
honest and use the GNU tools for its documentation. Otherwise the GNU
project could be rightfully accused of hypocrisy.