Re: [PATCH] Remove gdb/nlm subdirectory

[Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>]

> Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:47:27 -0500
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> 
> 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 <drow@false.org>
> > > 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.

I believe the last time we proposed this some guy from Novell stepped
up and said he'd like to keep the code.  This must have been around
the time Novell acquired SuSE.  But I never heard from this guy again.

> > 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).

We have no way of checking whether this code still works.  Let's get
rid of it.  If someone complains, he/she can get it out of the attic
and we can add it back if said person converts the configure fragment
to autoconf 2.5x.

Mark