From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27916 invoked by alias); 16 Nov 2004 08:37:41 -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 27424 invoked from network); 16 Nov 2004 08:37:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO walton.sibelius.xs4all.nl) (82.92.89.47) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 16 Nov 2004 08:37:05 -0000 Received: from elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl [192.168.0.2]) by walton.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id iAG8b1R2018047; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 09:37:01 +0100 (CET) Received: from elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.12.6p3/8.12.6) with ESMTP id iAG8b1d3000630; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 09:37:01 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from kettenis@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.12.6p3/8.12.6/Submit) id iAG8auV2000625; Tue, 16 Nov 2004 09:36:56 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 08:37:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200411160836.iAG8auV2000625@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: eliz@gnu.org CC: cagney@gnu.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <01c4cb98$Blat.v2.2.2$fc133040@zahav.net.il> (eliz@gnu.org) Subject: Re: Assume solib.h References: <4193BFA0.3060607@gnu.org> <200411112005.iABK5FrV098628@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <4193DDCE.7060205@gnu.org> <200411112224.iABMODmo099121@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <4194DBEB.6010304@gnu.org> <01c4c8db$Blat.v2.2.2$377f5020@zahav.net.il> <419942CB.4000905@gnu.org> <01c4cb98$Blat.v2.2.2$fc133040@zahav.net.il> X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00329.txt.bz2 Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 06:57:57 +0200 From: "Eli Zaretskii" > Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 18:59:07 -0500 > From: Andrew Cagney > Cc: mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl, joseph@codesourcery.com, kevinb@redhat.com, > gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com > > > > I'm with Mark on this one: a patch that potentially breaks a supported > > platform doesn't get my vote. If a platform is supported, it deserves > > that we don't break it, and calling it ``marginal'' doesn't change > > anything. > > Eli, can you perhaphs explain what exactly you mean by "supported" Like Daniel, I consider "supported" any target for which GDB builds and works, and which is not declared deprecated. Hmm, personally I think that's a bit too broad. I consider a system "supported" if there is someone who is more or less actively tracking GDB development, making sure that GDB keeps working on a particular target. > how the GNU project benefits by expending already limited resources > on continually fixing vax-ultrix - a non GNU system The same way it benefits by expending already limited resources on fixing other targets--by being useful to our users. I can't say with a straight face that vax-ultrix will be very useful to our more than a few user; there aren't many VAXen left running ULTRIX I suppose. I "support" vax-ultrix since it was fun to do. But I think it serves the higher purpose of keeping us honest about the variety of systems out there. Since it is an up to date target it doesn't take much resources. Keeping support for targets without shared libraries alive just for vax-ultrix wouldn't make sense. But it certainly isn't the only target out there without shared libs. Mark