Re: GDB manuals
Branden Robinson <email@example.com> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 08:27:46PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > RMS reports that a new upstream GDB release has been made (126.96.36.199)
> > which fixes the copyright problem on the GDB manuals. I've filed an
> > RC bug against the gdb package urging an upgrade.
> Your statement is too vague. What is the new documentation license?
It's just vague enough! :)
It's not a change in the general FSF manual policy at all. It's a fix
for the fact that the GDB manuals (for some presumably accidental
reason) labelled various technical sections as being invariant.
> Are there any Invariant Sections or Cover Texts? If so, what are they?
I assume so, but not any differently than the Emacs or GCC manuals.
This has nothing to do with the general problem of invariant sections,
but is purely about the special mistakes made wrt the GDB manuals.
This makes GDB now in the same category as Emacs and GCC: not
unproblematic, but also not horrible. This change should certainly be
made for woody.
Whatever conclusion we come to about documentation in general, in my
opinion, should not directly affect the woody release: that is, I
don't think there's any particular rush. But there was a rush for the
GDB manuals, to deal with the special problems there.
Is that clear enough?