From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9593 invoked by alias); 19 Feb 2011 13:50:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 9583 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Feb 2011 13:50:32 -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 13:50:26 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66D272BABED; Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:50:24 -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 LTUsXyZxfSRg; Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:50:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED6B82BABE9; Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:50:23 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5B7E51459B0; Sat, 19 Feb 2011 17:50:14 +0400 (RET) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 17:24:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Mark Kettenis Cc: tromey@redhat.com, yao@codesourcery.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [rfa/rfc] Build libcommon.a for gdb and gdbserver Message-ID: <20110219135014.GB17297@adacore.com> References: <4D30E23F.3080103@codesourcery.com> <4D34C9DE.3040603@codesourcery.com> <4D375F44.70504@codesourcery.com> <20110219121448.GA17297@adacore.com> <201102191318.p1JDIQE6005275@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201102191318.p1JDIQE6005275@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> 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/msg00513.txt.bz2 > Sorry, but I'm really strongly opposed to making GNU make a > requirement. The fact that GCC requires it is bad enough. It forced > several BSD's to reengineer the GCC build system completely. Please > don't make us do the same thing for GDB! (wow) As long as there is an easy way around, I don't mind. But one of these days, these BSDs are going to have to move forward a bit. We're making a certain amount of effort to accomodate these requests, so it would be nice to some effort coming our way too. Rather than forcing BSD, can we perhaps plan some kind of transition together? -- Joel