From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from hamza.pair.com (hamza.pair.com [209.68.5.143]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DACC43858D1E for ; Sat, 11 Mar 2023 19:41:08 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org DACC43858D1E Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=pfeifer.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pfeifer.com Received: from hamza.pair.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hamza.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 003AE33E59; Sat, 11 Mar 2023 14:41:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from naga.localdomain (188-23-63-229.adsl.highway.telekom.at [188.23.63.229]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by hamza.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6A25B33E4D; Sat, 11 Mar 2023 14:41:03 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2023 20:41:02 +0100 (CET) From: Gerald Pfeifer To: Sandra Loosemore cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [Committed] Docs: Update documentation of Texinfo versions for building manuals. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1df10d79-e212-0271-318d-c8dfec076772@pfeifer.com> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Scanned-By: mailmunge 3.11 on 209.68.5.143 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,RCVD_IN_BARRACUDACENTRAL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Fri, 10 Mar 2023, Sandra Loosemore wrote: > I've checked in the attached patch per discussion in another thread about > possibly updating the minimum required Texinfo version. Thank you, Sandra! I was going to udpate the comment in doc/install.texi2html just now, and saw you beat me to it (and better than I probably would have done it). :) > BTW the hardcopy manual being offered for sale in the FSF shop is for > GCC 3.3 (2003?), so I felt no compunction about deleting the pointer to > it as unhelpful. Totally, yes. Gerald