On Tue, 17 Dec 2024, James K. Lowden wrote: > On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 18:04:01 +0000 (UTC) > Joseph Myers <josmy...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > I don't think we should introduce man pages as a new source format > > for documentation in GCC. Either .texi or .rst (with generated man > > pages) would be fine. > > I hope you can be persuaded to accept our man pages, at least for now, > because they exist. I don't see the harm. IMO good documention in any > format is better than bad or missing documentation in any format.
I think the HTML and PDF documentation on the website should if anything take precedence over installed manuals. So make sure your patches include the changes required to update_web_docs_git to install HTML and PDF versions of those man pages, and point to somewhere we can see the formatted versions. That will then provide a way to compare with other manuals. Note that the overall structure of a man page - a focus specifically on how to invoke a particular command - is only a limited part of a manual for a toolchain component, and it's not generally helpful to try to force other documentation into the overall man page structure (as opposed to having a more logically structured manual for the compiler as a whole, from which the part about command-line options then gets extracted as a man page). -- Joseph S. Myers josmy...@redhat.com
