From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30337 invoked by alias); 24 Jan 2012 19:41:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 30327 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Jan 2012 19:41:26 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:41:13 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q0OJenrW028256 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 24 Jan 2012 14:40:49 -0500 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-21.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.21]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q0OJejpL021845 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 24 Jan 2012 14:40:47 -0500 Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:41:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Doug Evans Cc: Pedro Alves , Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] Do not open Python scripts twice #2 [Re: [RFC] Crash sourcing Python script on Windows] Message-ID: <20120124194044.GA2855@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <1317251996-12146-1-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> <20120123181125.GA26683@host2.jankratochvil.net> <4F1DA92A.4020207@redhat.com> <20120123210850.GA28792@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120123221706.GA21051@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120124143609.GA20367@host2.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2012-01/txt/msg00842.txt.bz2 On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:32:18 +0100, Doug Evans wrote: Skipped the discussion what can be more statistically useful and rather chose: > On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 6:36 AM, Jan Kratochvil > wrote: > > And it does not make sense to discuss what is better or worse, it is only > > important the standard is to not do directories relocation. > > Well, the important thing is to pick what works for the right reasons, > not introduce unwarranted incompatibilities, etc. If you want to patch other 10000 or how many packages so they all use directory relocations, you are free to do. I prefer to remove the directory relocations from the single (maybe there are few of such) differing GDB package instead. As a next step of this discussion I can only submit a ticket to FESCo (Fedora Engineering Steering Committee) to validate whether my Fedora non-relocatability patch/idea is right or not. > [AIUC] I'd instead impose requiring chroot on Fedora package testers > than regular users. Normal users always use only the system installed GDB. Anything else is unsupported. > That still doesn't help me decide whether this patch should go in (as is). > If you wanted to punt on windows and just always impose a double > open(), I'd be ok with that, for example. Without MS-Windows the Joel's patch would not be invented and we would just always do single open() like before. Or I do not understand it now. Thanks, Jan