From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24929 invoked by alias); 5 Dec 2002 17:42:31 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 24914 invoked from network); 5 Dec 2002 17:42:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO delorie.com) (207.22.48.162) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 5 Dec 2002 17:42:29 -0000 Received: from envy.delorie.com (envy.delorie.com [207.22.48.171]) by delorie.com (8.11.6/8.9.1) with ESMTP id gB5HgTf04936; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 12:42:29 -0500 Received: (from dj@localhost) by envy.delorie.com (8.11.6/8.11.2) id gB5HgSb20034; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 12:42:28 -0500 Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 09:42:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200212051742.gB5HgSb20034@envy.delorie.com> X-Authentication-Warning: envy.delorie.com: dj set sender to dj@delorie.com using -f From: DJ Delorie To: klee@apple.com CC: binutils@sources.redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <2D204CFD-0878-11D7-A7CE-00039396EEB8@apple.com> (message from Klee Dienes on Thu, 5 Dec 2002 12:37:07 -0500) Subject: Re: [RFC] Update to current automake/autoconf/libtool versions. References: <2D204CFD-0878-11D7-A7CE-00039396EEB8@apple.com> X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00156.txt.bz2 > As far as I can tell offhand, none of the other patches depend on > libiberty being updated, so one option is to upgrade the other > directories, and leave libiberty alone. That would be fine. If you had a patch that depended on libiberty being upgraded, I'd probably question it anyway. > The downside of this is that gcc/binutils folks now need to keep > multiple versions of the tools around, and I imagine it would play > hell with --enable-maintainer-mode. You didn't propose changing gcc, newlib, cygwin, sid, or many other projects, so this will be an issue regardless. > In what way is it a bad time to change libiberty? GCC is getting ready to branch for a release. After the branch, we'll merge bib and be back to the usual openness. > Would it be possible to convert the libiberty on the bib-branch, and > import the binutils/gdb version from there? By the time the issues are worked out for gdb/binutils and the switch made there, gcc will hopefully have branched. Plus the gcc head is more stable than the branch anyway, which is what I'd prefer be the main copy for everyone else. How much of a hurry are you in, anyway?