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: Kevin Buettner <kevinb at redhat dot com>
- To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at redhat dot com>, Eli Zaretskii <eliz at is dot elta dot co dot il>
- Cc: ac131313 at ges dot redhat dot com, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 12:05:13 -0700
- 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>
On Sep 26, 1:40pm, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >> 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?
Having just been through this with GNU vs @sc{gnu}, I think it makes
sense to do it for GDB.
Andrew, what bothered you about the result? (You said that you weren't
sure that you liked the final result.)
Kevin