This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [rfc/rfa:doco] Use @sc{gdb}?
- From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz at is dot elta dot co dot il>
- To: ac131313 at redhat dot com
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 19:39:13 +0300
- Subject: Re: [rfc/rfa:doco] Use @sc{gdb}?
- References: <3D66B84F.6010803@ges.redhat.com> <2593-Sat24Aug2002123336+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> <3D934695.1020306@redhat.com>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at is dot elta dot co dot il>
> Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 13:40:37 -0400
> From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>
>
> >> Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 18:33:51 -0400
> >> From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@ges.redhat.com>
> >>
> >> I got annoyed at all the GDB's in the formatted manual being really
> >> large so tried changing them to @sc{gdb}. It fixed that problem but I'm
> >> not sure that I like the final result :-) (You'll need to build
> >> gdb.pdf, gdb ps or gdb.dvi).
> >>
> >> Is there a style guide thing on this one? Eli?
> >
> >
> > There are no strict rules on this one, AFAIK. If the results of
> > @sc{gdb} look nice to people, let's do it; if not, let's not.
> >
> > Personally, I like the results of @sc in such cases.
>
> So, decision time. Trunk and 5.3 branch?
Fine with me. As long as the manual can be produced in all the
supported formats without error messages, this change cannot possibly
screw up the upcoming release 5.3.