From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24523 invoked by alias); 19 Feb 2011 17:24:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 24514 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Feb 2011 17:24:45 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl) (83.163.83.176) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 19 Feb 2011 17:24:38 +0000 Received: from glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p1JHMhYE011430; Sat, 19 Feb 2011 18:22:43 +0100 (CET) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id p1JHMfh5027149; Sat, 19 Feb 2011 18:22:41 +0100 (CET) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 18:01:00 -0000 Message-Id: <201102191722.p1JHMfh5027149@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: brobecker@adacore.com CC: tromey@redhat.com, yao@codesourcery.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <20110219135014.GB17297@adacore.com> (message from Joel Brobecker on Sat, 19 Feb 2011 17:50:14 +0400) Subject: Re: [rfa/rfc] Build libcommon.a for gdb and gdbserver References: <4D30E23F.3080103@codesourcery.com> <4D34C9DE.3040603@codesourcery.com> <4D375F44.70504@codesourcery.com> <20110219121448.GA17297@adacore.com> <201102191318.p1JDIQE6005275@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20110219135014.GB17297@adacore.com> 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/msg00514.txt.bz2 > Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 17:50:14 +0400 > From: Joel Brobecker > > > 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. Move forward? In what direction? We have a POSIX compatible make implementation. We have our own set of extensions on top of that. It doesn't make sense to add GNU extensions as well. And it doesn't make sense for us to switch from BSD make to GNU make. > We're making a certain amount of effort to accomodate these requests, > so it would be nice to some effort coming our way too. I do make an effort to fix GNUisms that creep into our makefiles. It doesn't happen very often; I can't remember the last time this happened. > Rather than forcing BSD, can we perhaps plan some kind of > transition together? Transition to what?