On Tue, 2025-10-07 at 22:19 +0200, Arsen Arsenović wrote: > Jonathan Wakely <[email protected]> writes: > > > Storing both .pdf and .pdf.gz files seems silly, when compression > > makes very little difference for PDF files. > > > > Storing both .ps and .ps.gz seems silly when the .ps files are quite > > large (and I bet nobody even uses them). > > > > Storing both *-html.tar and *-html.tar.gz seems silly when the .tar > > files are huge. > > > > None of the uncompressed .ps and uncompressed .tar files are linked to > > from https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/ and neither are the compressed > > .pdf.gz files. So we should stop publishing all .ps and .tar and > > .pdf.gz files. > > I agree, I was going for 1-1 equivalence (hence asking for an archive of > the onlinedocs directory) for an initial version, as to shake the status > quo as little as possible. > > If we're to drop such things, we could also drop DVIs (they were > recently dropped from the GNU coding standards also, see: > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2025-07/msg00127.html > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-standards/2025-07/msg00011.html > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-standards/2025-09/msg00005.html).
I would be in favor of no longer producing .dvi files. At least for gen_gcc_docs.sh. Where they only seem to be produced to then generate the .ps files. Cheers, Mark
