From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx07-00178001.pphosted.com (mx08-00178001.pphosted.com [91.207.212.93]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5DF1A3858D32 for ; Sun, 15 Jan 2023 17:23:04 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 5DF1A3858D32 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=foss.st.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=foss.st.com Received: from pps.filterd (m0046660.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx07-00178001.pphosted.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 30F4Xs0I003635; Sun, 15 Jan 2023 18:22:57 +0100 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=foss.st.com; h=message-id : date : mime-version : subject : to : cc : references : from : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=selector1; bh=gAYa2pwlvHIdlBC+n9VX9Rq29TtWsF3rvHNVLLiO9k4=; b=vQIgpjGWMKea4pmabvDIKNGdSz1khidb4rSBXLG3FaskSYWYGk/QiyJ/HjkOpzpbSj+Q UrSh5YqiYWiautkiZ79uA2CsiLO9kCdWWzZZ6DgnAMUsTtZ3W+a1pcROGirBZszMuPAm HQIzlb3gpAQjtzo09HSJAMMqmrym49ou6QM2oprHHDFPvjKfM+ES2Gi/0BiqN90p462m Qj4dvr/BMY15UVnXExE2ro8U0Me145vavd9kzJUZsOQ2yBdLC4aXkWCJNjxpRQxtloz7 QwpYQoi/NUQ/rUkrUbbP3reBSup+3fhJE8GmBljKGqepPjUtQ5XjIg5gZ+9sOCkszULj HA== Received: from beta.dmz-eu.st.com (beta.dmz-eu.st.com [164.129.1.35]) by mx07-00178001.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3n3jdewrcf-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 15 Jan 2023 18:22:57 +0100 Received: from euls16034.sgp.st.com (euls16034.sgp.st.com [10.75.44.20]) by beta.dmz-eu.st.com (STMicroelectronics) with ESMTP id BDEA710002A; Sun, 15 Jan 2023 18:22:55 +0100 (CET) Received: from Webmail-eu.st.com (shfdag1node3.st.com [10.75.129.71]) by euls16034.sgp.st.com (STMicroelectronics) with ESMTP id 9FCA621ADC3; Sun, 15 Jan 2023 18:22:55 +0100 (CET) Received: from [10.252.29.48] (10.252.29.48) by SHFDAG1NODE3.st.com (10.75.129.71) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2507.13; Sun, 15 Jan 2023 18:22:55 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2023 18:22:54 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.6.1 Subject: Re: Generated GDB documentation have colliding files on a case insensitive files system Content-Language: en-US To: Eli Zaretskii CC: References: <831qo6u1m0.fsf@gnu.org> <778ba370-2304-bc7f-c160-9adb24c05f9b@foss.st.com> <83y1qesjys.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfgmsit3.fsf@gnu.org> <64679b6c-e318-0b7a-2dad-9a1f716f9ba8@foss.st.com> <83a62rq4jg.fsf@gnu.org> From: Torbjorn SVENSSON In-Reply-To: <83a62rq4jg.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [10.252.29.48] X-ClientProxiedBy: SHFCAS1NODE1.st.com (10.75.129.72) To SHFDAG1NODE3.st.com (10.75.129.71) X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.219,Aquarius:18.0.923,Hydra:6.0.562,FMLib:17.11.122.1 definitions=2023-01-15_13,2023-01-13_02,2022-06-22_01 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,NICE_REPLY_A,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham 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 2023-01-09 13:24, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2023 07:51:17 +0100 >> CC: >> From: Torbjorn SVENSSON >> >>>> I was considering if the redirect files could simply be removed from the >>>> GDB documentation tree or if they are actually used for inter components >>>> references. >>> >>> They are produced by makeinfo, and they are produced for a reason, no? >> >> According to the other thread, they are generated to easy cross linking >> the documentation. There is nothing in the documentation that will >> generate a link to any of these files, so hence the question if they are >> needed by GDB. > > Maybe I'm confused, but don't you above answer your own question? > "Easy cross linking" is the reason. Well, cross linking from other manuals. Does this requirement jump the need to actually have all the content? :) > >>>> Even if we get a solution merged in texinfo, it will take years for it >>>> to get activity used, and in the mean while, we are stuck with this >>>> issue in GDB. >>> >>> I still don't want to make any conclusions until the Texinfo >>> discussion is completed. How do you know there's no solution with the >>> existing Texinfo versions? >> >> As I understood it, it was proved that the redirect pages were colliding >> and no way around that in current implementation, but maybe I >> misunderstood the reply... > > AFAIU, it's a bug in Texinfo. I hope they will solve it at some > point. > > But now let me turn the table and ask you why we as a project should > care about HTML version of the manual being installed on MS-Windows? I'm just seeing that there are toolchains out there that contains a prebuilt GCC and GDB and that they contain documentation in the form of HTML files. I suppose these packages could be seen as the bad part here, but is it really so. Can't GDB improve the way the HTML manuals are constructed in a way that would work regardless of where they end up? > Having said that, I have no serious objections to changing the name of > the anchor if it will solve the problem for you. Looks like there will a warning emitted now when generating the HTML files if there are more than one anchor/node with a unique name on case insensitive files systems as long as the CASE_INSENSITIVE_FILENAMES option is set with the next version of Texinfo. As I see it, there are 3 different options for the documentation in GDB: 1. Leave everything as is and forget about all users extracting a cross built GDB with documentation and let the users deal with duplicated files... 2. Set the CASE_INSENSITIVE_FILENAMES option and also change one of the anchors to have unique files. This will require Texinfo >7.0.1 that is not yet released. 3. Generate one single big HTML file. This should be supported with existing versions of Texinfo, although I haven't tested this option. What would be needed in GDB sources is to replace the command line option --split-size with --no-split to avoid generating more than one file. What option would you prefer? Kind regards, Torbjörn