From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19417 invoked by alias); 5 Jul 2005 17:48:52 -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 19404 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Jul 2005 17:48:46 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Jul 2005 17:48:46 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.51) id 1DprXG-0007oM-Na; Tue, 05 Jul 2005 13:48:42 -0400 Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 17:48:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Alexandre Oliva Cc: Ben Elliston , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: PATCH Makefile.in Message-ID: <20050705174842.GA30006@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> <20050704153539.GA22380@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/msg00062.txt.bz2 On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 02:33:12PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jul 4, 2005, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > 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... > > But not as safe. E.g., I don't want net GCC test runs to be affected > by my local changes to dejagnu required by an ongoing port. It's obvious that we don't agree. But does anyone besides yourself still see value in this? -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC