From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2127 invoked by alias); 4 Jul 2005 15:35:46 -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 2086 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Jul 2005 15:35:44 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Mon, 04 Jul 2005 15:35:44 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.51) id 1DpSyx-0005qJ-W0; Mon, 04 Jul 2005 11:35:40 -0400 Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2005 15:35:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Alexandre Oliva Cc: Ben Elliston , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: PATCH Makefile.in Message-ID: <20050704153539.GA22380@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Alexandre Oliva , Ben Elliston , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20050630063814.A8532@mailhub.air.net.au> <20050703190609.GK13811@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-SW-Source: 2005-07/txt/msg00049.txt.bz2 On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 10:46:35AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > This is an argument for the removal of dejagnu and expect from the > tree, which I agree with. It's the one-line change in the test to > decide which RUNTEST to use that I'm opposing. I can't imagine such a > line is too much baggage to carry around. If you think so, well... I > guess I'll just shut up and wait until your next ports require changes > in dejagnu. I keep a local copy of dejagnu in my PATH. I've been doing this for years (and yes, I do deal with two ports that require changes in dejagnu). I find this way much more convenient... -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC