This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PATCH: Place manuals under the GDFL
- To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Subject: Re: PATCH: Place manuals under the GDFL
- From: "Zack Weinberg" <zackw at Stanford dot EDU>
- Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 01:09:21 -0700
- Cc: jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, neil at daikokuya dot demon dot co dot uk
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.32.0105010044410.1603-100000@kern.srcf.societies.cam.ac.uk> <20010430173129L.mitchell@codesourcery.com> <20010430174902.H6612@stanford.edu> <20010430200625I.mitchell@codesourcery.com>
On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 08:06:25PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> >>>>> "Zack" == Zack Weinberg <zackw@Stanford.EDU> writes:
>
> >> In my opinion, we should just remove the man-pages, or replace
> >> them with stubs that point to the TeXinfo documentation.
>
> Zack> I must respectfully disagree. The user community has made
> Zack> quite clear that it wants substantial manpages. They are
> Zack> generated from the TeXinfo documentation, so there is no
> Zack> real maintenance burden.
>
> OK. But I don't think we should do anything special to try to
> eliminate the GFDL there.
Would the block of text at the top of gcc.texi - "Permission is
granted, &c..." - do for the manpage, with a pointer to the Info docs
for the complete text of the license?
Can we drop the GNU/Linux appendix from the manual? Everyone's heard
it at this point, and the GCC manual is the wrong place for it in my
opinion.
zw