Re: which patches to review

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 10:32:29AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> > From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
> >Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 13:15:57 -0400
> >
> >   Here, you're mistaken.
> >   
> >He isn't %100 wrong.  I've been asked repeatedly to basically
> >multi-arch the Sparc targets out the wazoo to get the Linux
> >Sparc bits in.
> 
> One of GDB's overriding objectives it to get everything multi-arch.  To 
> that end:
> 
> Post 5.0, every new architecture has to be mult-arched
> Post 5.1, every addition to an existing architecture has to be mult-arch 
> enabled
> 
> As acceptence criteria, they are simple and transparent.  I don't think 
> me stiching up some sort of cosy deal where you were some how excempted 
> from this would go down very well :-)

Again with due respect, I've got to object to the point of view in this
message.  I wouldn't say that becoming multi-arch is "one of GDB's
overriding objectives".  It's something that we all agree would be good
for GDB; it's something that I agree with you should happen before our
next release, which is not scheduled for at least four months IIRC. 
But if it is an "overriding objective", it's only so for you.  My
overriding objective is for GDB to improve.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz                           Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer