From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12425 invoked by alias); 27 Mar 2009 15:50:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 12416 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Mar 2009 15:50:56 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:50:52 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3D9A2BAC42; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 11:50:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 9hu+cq4hwB5w; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 11:50:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9932B2BAC4B; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 11:50:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C024D5BD21; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 08:50:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:55:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [www/RFA] Remove references to libgdb in GDB's web pages Message-ID: <20090327155041.GR9472@adacore.com> References: <20090326220644.GC11916@adacore.com> <200903271412.49317.pedro@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200903271412.49317.pedro@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) 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: 2009-03/txt/msg00626.txt.bz2 > I'm a bit unconfortable in making a piece of history just disappear. > > Can't we instead remove "current" from the link, and say somewhere that > this is not the path that GDB is now following? Perhaps a short sensence > below the link? I can certainly do that. I'm not that uncomfortable because I think it was a bad idea - bad idea for us due to the overhead of providing a stable API, and also a bad idea (IMO) for the users, as it is much more flexible to have the debugging module as a separate process (if the process SEGVs, you don't die with it, of if there is a bug in GDB you can switch to a newer version of GDB without changing version of your tool, etc). But perhaps you're right. I did certainly think at first that a libgdb would be great. So it might be interesting to have a note on the website explaining that this is no longer a current project. At least people won't think that the idea is new and exciting. Anway, will send a patch along what you propose ASAP. We can choose whichever we prefer. -- Joel