From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22469 invoked by alias); 24 Mar 2006 14:48:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 22461 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Mar 2006 14:48:54 -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 14:48:53 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1FMnZY-00047Q-0b; Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:47:28 -0500 Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 20:23:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Jim Blandy , sje@cup.hp.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove gdb/nlm subdirectory Message-ID: <20060324144727.GA15703@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , Jim Blandy , sje@cup.hp.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <200603240102.RAA18110@hpsje.cup.hp.com> <8f2776cb0603232024u163c75edm20eb01ff1d476d18@mail.gmail.com> <20060324043008.GA5092@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-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/msg00271.txt.bz2 On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 11:46:20AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 23:30:08 -0500 > > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > Cc: sje@cup.hp.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > > > 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. > > Do we have good reasons to believe the nlm stuff is not used, or > cannot be built with a reasonable amount of effort? If so, I see no > reason to have the staging period. Well, in all the time I've been working on GDB, I've never seen a user question about Netware, a GNATS PR about Netware, or a developer commit tested on Netware. To build it you need a Netware-provided SDK; I don't know if those are still obtainable. > Otherwise, let's leave this for the next release. I'm fine with that if you'd prefer. I think we can ignore its old configure file for now, then, instead of worrying about upgrading it to 2.5x (which started this discussion). -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery