From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28633 invoked by alias); 19 Feb 2011 12:15:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 28593 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Feb 2011 12:15:04 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 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; Sat, 19 Feb 2011 12:14:59 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D5442BAC3B; Sat, 19 Feb 2011 07:14:57 -0500 (EST) 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 9sGX0h9QY9le; Sat, 19 Feb 2011 07:14:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 274332BAC39; Sat, 19 Feb 2011 07:14:57 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 634301459B0; Sat, 19 Feb 2011 16:14:48 +0400 (RET) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 12:35:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Tom Tromey Cc: Yao Qi , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [rfa/rfc] Build libcommon.a for gdb and gdbserver Message-ID: <20110219121448.GA17297@adacore.com> References: <4D30E23F.3080103@codesourcery.com> <4D34C9DE.3040603@codesourcery.com> <4D375F44.70504@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2011-02/txt/msg00510.txt.bz2 > I think it would be a good idea to require GNU make, but I think that is > something that needs general agreement. Since GCC already requires GNU Make, I don't think that it would be a problem for us to require GNU Make as well. IIRC, the reason for not requiring GNU Make was for FreeBSD where it's not installed by default? It doesn't seem like a strong argument to limit ourselves, especially considering the fact that they should already know how to handle this dependency because of GCC. -- Joel