From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9565 invoked by alias); 24 Mar 2006 04:30:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 9557 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Mar 2006 04:30:15 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Fri, 24 Mar 2006 04:30:14 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1FMdw8-0001LL-TK; Thu, 23 Mar 2006 23:30:08 -0500 Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:10:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Jim Blandy Cc: sje@cup.hp.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove gdb/nlm subdirectory Message-ID: <20060324043008.GA5092@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Jim Blandy , sje@cup.hp.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <200603240102.RAA18110@hpsje.cup.hp.com> <8f2776cb0603232024u163c75edm20eb01ff1d476d18@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8f2776cb0603232024u163c75edm20eb01ff1d476d18@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-03/txt/msg00265.txt.bz2 On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 08:24:54PM -0800, Jim Blandy wrote: > In the past we've generally marked something as outgoing for a > release, and then actually removed it in the next, or something > roughly like that, to give people some warning in case someone wants > to step up and maintain the code. On the other hand, I think GDB's > policies have accumulated a lot of dead weight over the last few > years; some existing practices are more trouble than they're worth, in > my opinion. > > So I'm not sure it's deathly important to do a staged phase-out of the > nlm directory. But I'd like to see some other maintainers' opinions > on it, so that we're making a deliberate choice as a group about how > to handle these cases. For things that folks still might, conceivably, be using in current versions of GDB, and things that we still reasonably expect to work, the obsoletion interval makes sense. However, we've recently removed one piece without that interval (rdi-share), and I've got my eye on two others right now (KOD, which there was already agreement to remove; just need to do it), and remote-rdp.c. I think that's perfectly appropriate. I wouldn't mind pruning some of the other remote targets while we're here, either - e.g. remote-mips.c. I'm in favor of removing gdb/nlm/, but let's take another couple of days to see if anyone disagrees. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery