This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [rfa/doc] tex -> texindex -> tex -> texindex -> tex
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at is dot elta dot co dot il>
- To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 12:22:11 +0200 (IST)
- Subject: Re: [rfa/doc] tex -> texindex -> tex -> texindex -> tex
On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> Noticed that the texinfo 4.0 doco mentions that, when building
> documentation, the sequence:
>
> tex
> texindex
> tex
> texindex
> tex
>
> 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?