From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-42095-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 29445 invoked by alias); 2 Dec 2001 17:53:27 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 29423 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2001 17:53:26 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5)
  by hostedprojects.ges.redhat.com with SMTP; 2 Dec 2001 17:53:26 -0000
Received: by nile.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 338)
	id B2EACF28C1; Sun,  2 Dec 2001 12:52:42 -0500 (EST)
From: dewar@gnat.com
To: dewar@gnat.com, guerby@acm.org
Subject: Re: [Ada] User Guide?
Cc: bosch@gnat.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Message-Id: <20011202175242.B2EACF28C1@nile.gnat.com>
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 09:53:00 -0000
X-SW-Source: 2001-12/txt/msg00031.txt.bz2

<<My question was: is this impractical on purely commercial grounds, ie
providing support to VMS people who do not want to hear about
UNIX, so the manual must either all VMS-ish or otherwise. Or is this
technically, texinfo-technology-wise impractical? If the latter, what
are the known technical problems?
>>

The point here is that unless we can meet the requirements of VMS users
in a single document, then we will be commited to having ACT maintain a
compeltely separate manual, which would force a compelte split here, and
we want to avoid that. There is no way that the gnu version of the manual
would stay up to date if that were to happen, and seeing as we think that
there are no insuperable technical problems, let's try that approach and
see if it works for everyone.