From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#9891: 24.0.90; Duplicated entry at the info directory Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2011 09:03:03 -0400 Message-ID: References: <83y5w1m1wu.fsf@gnu.org> <87pqhc1cgr.fsf@mail.jurta.org> <87sjm7qxu5.fsf@mail.jurta.org> <83ipn3mb41.fsf@gnu.org> <87obwuvne3.fsf@mail.jurta.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1320239036 25311 80.91.229.12 (2 Nov 2011 13:03:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 13:03:56 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 9891@debbugs.gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Nov 02 14:03:52 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RLaTw-0002No-QI for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 02 Nov 2011 14:03:52 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40868 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RLaTw-00021O-Ar for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 02 Nov 2011 09:03:52 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:50424) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RLaTo-00021A-GS for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Nov 2011 09:03:50 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RLaTj-00058Y-GE for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Nov 2011 09:03:44 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:43560) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RLaTj-00058U-E4 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Nov 2011 09:03:39 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RLaW2-0007md-09 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Nov 2011 09:06:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2011 13:06:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 9891 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 9891-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B9891.132023913029867 (code B ref 9891); Wed, 02 Nov 2011 13:06:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 9891) by debbugs.gnu.org; 2 Nov 2011 13:05:30 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RLaVV-0007lg-Uw for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 02 Nov 2011 09:05:30 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RLaVS-0007lX-UV for 9891@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 02 Nov 2011 09:05:28 -0400 Original-Received: from eliz by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RLaT9-0006gN-Qe; Wed, 02 Nov 2011 09:03:03 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Stefan Monnier on Wed, 02 Nov 2011 08:41:58 -0400) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2011 09:06:02 -0400 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:53445 Archived-At: > From: Stefan Monnier > Cc: Juri Linkov , 9891@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2011 08:41:58 -0400 > > I'm not sure what is being discussed. Is it that the two above lines > are kept, or that one of the two is removed as a duplicate? That it is removed. > And why is the other behavior better? Because these are 2 different glibc functions. > Stefan "To my layman's eyes, the two lines are equivalent, just > like "* GDB: (gdb)" and "* Gdb: (gdb)" and should be > collapsed into one" Evidently, this is not always true. Leaving redundant information is a lesser evil than removing non-redundant one, IMO.