From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18515 invoked by alias); 10 Jun 2004 02:34:13 -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 18500 invoked from network); 10 Jun 2004 02:34:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhub.air.net.au) (203.52.201.202) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 10 Jun 2004 02:34:11 -0000 Received: from mailhub.air.net.au (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.air.net.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9769436DA2 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 12:34:08 +1000 (EST) Received: by mailhub.air.net.au (tmda-sendmail, from uid 500); Thu, 10 Jun 2004 12:34:06 +1000 (EST) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 02:34:00 -0000 To: DJ Delorie Cc: binutils@sources.redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: top-level removal of dejagnu, expect Message-ID: <20040610123403.A10027@mailhub.air.net.au> References: <20040610092223.A1221@mailhub.air.net.au> <200406092340.i59Ne3FT028298@greed.delorie.com> <20040610101446.B3128@mailhub.air.net.au> <200406100214.i5A2Ew3P031152@greed.delorie.com> <20040610121927.A9164@mailhub.air.net.au> <200406100229.i5A2Tvv9031322@greed.delorie.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Qxx1br4bt0+wmkIi" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <200406100229.i5A2Tvv9031322@greed.delorie.com>; from dj@redhat.com on Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 10:29:57PM -0400 From: Ben Elliston X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/0.86 (Venetian Way) X-Primary-Address: bje@air.net.au X-SW-Source: 2004-06/txt/msg00213.txt.bz2 --Qxx1br4bt0+wmkIi Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-length: 515 > > I'm not sure why you think moving to one copy of the FSF dejagnu > > sources will disturb that. >=20 > I was concerned about the toplevel build support, not the dejagnu > sources. The toplevel makefile/configure can deal with dejagnu being > there or not, I see no need to remove such support. The obvious reason to remove such support is to reduce the amount of stuff to maintain. If having top-level build support for expect and dejagnu is important to Red Hat, can't Red Hat maintain local patches? Ben --Qxx1br4bt0+wmkIi Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline Content-length: 189 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAx8ibbNtDbHIEhSURAnGAAKCfc+Vs6hKdfWvaWrzEACrTia5E0QCgr4cZ eCO0H6hrTsDxs2FJpY6Q60g= =NnT8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Qxx1br4bt0+wmkIi--