From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25427 invoked by alias); 12 Feb 2008 19:45:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 25414 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Feb 2008 19:45:54 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 12 Feb 2008 19:45:29 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E855098118; Tue, 12 Feb 2008 19:45:27 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1DF79801D; Tue, 12 Feb 2008 19:45:27 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1JP14I-00073Z-SO; Tue, 12 Feb 2008 14:45:26 -0500 Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 19:45:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Markus Deuling , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, uweigand@de.ibm.com, muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr Subject: Re: [Patch]: Build script gdb_buildall.sh Message-ID: <20080212194526.GA26919@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , Markus Deuling , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, uweigand@de.ibm.com, muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr References: <47B00041.2030800@de.ibm.com> <47B135E1.6070108@de.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-12-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-02/txt/msg00203.txt.bz2 On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 09:43:36PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 07:00:01 +0100 > > From: Markus Deuling > > CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, drow@false.org, uweigand@de.ibm.com, > > muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr > > > > thanks for your input. I reworked the patch. Are the two patches for the script itself > > and for the documentation ok now? > > The docs is okay. I don't consider myself a shell script expert > enough to approve the script itself. The script is OK too. It's only for manual use, so we can fix problems with it as they come up. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery