From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8858 invoked by alias); 23 Feb 2011 21:52:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 8850 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Feb 2011 21:52:29 -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; Wed, 23 Feb 2011 21:52:25 +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 p1NLoUTe028643; Wed, 23 Feb 2011 22:50:30 +0100 (CET) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id p1NLoS65030303; Wed, 23 Feb 2011 22:50:28 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 21:53:00 -0000 Message-Id: <201102232150.p1NLoS65030303@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: pedro@codesourcery.com CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl, brobecker@adacore.com, tromey@redhat.com, yao@codesourcery.com In-reply-to: <201102202147.44100.pedro@codesourcery.com> (message from Pedro Alves on Sun, 20 Feb 2011 21:47:43 +0000) Subject: Re: [rfa/rfc] Build libcommon.a for gdb and gdbserver References: <4D30E23F.3080103@codesourcery.com> <20110219135014.GB17297@adacore.com> <201102191722.p1JHMfh5027149@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <201102202147.44100.pedro@codesourcery.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/msg00663.txt.bz2 > From: Pedro Alves > Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2011 21:47:43 +0000 > > On Saturday 19 February 2011 17:22:41, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > 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. > > Why not have gmake as a build dependency for gdb/gcc, but not as an > install dependency? Even if your packaging system can't handle that, > I'd think that bundling gmake's sources along with gccs or gdbs > sources, and tweaking the build scripts to build that gmake first, > point PATH at it, and then build gcc, should be much simpler and > much less maintenance than rewriting gcc's Makefiles. Sorry, that doesn't work for us. OpenBSD is not a kernel + a random collection of packages but a fairly complete Unix environment. You can install add-on software as packages, but the base system includes full development tools including a compiler (GCC), a debugger (GDB) and BSD make. We require that the base system can compile itself, and we won't include GNU make in the base system since we have a perfectly fine BSD licensed alternative.