From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 91163 invoked by alias); 13 Jun 2017 11:23:29 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 91145 invoked by uid 89); 13 Jun 2017 11:23:28 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: simark.ca Received: from simark.ca (HELO simark.ca) (158.69.221.121) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 13 Jun 2017 11:23:27 +0000 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 33) id 522D81E5A4; Tue, 13 Jun 2017 07:23:30 -0400 (EDT) To: Orgad Shaneh Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix python compatibility with old versions of GDB X-PHP-Originating-Script: 33:rcube.php MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 11:23:00 -0000 From: Simon Marchi Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <227db26304444bfb5ed8f699ab67e7fd@polymtl.ca> X-Sender: simon.marchi@polymtl.ca User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.2.5 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-06/txt/msg00372.txt.bz2 On 2017-06-12 06:31, Orgad Shaneh wrote: > On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 12:09 AM, Simon Marchi > wrote: >> Hi Orgad, >> >> I still don't understand what problem this is trying to fix. It looks >> like >> you want to make older versions of GDB work with newer versions of the >> Python scripts in the data directory. I am not sure this is what we >> want. >> If you want multiple version of GDB in parallel on a system, they >> should all >> be compiled with a different --prefix, and they will all get their own >> data-directory. We should only expect a certain version of the data >> directory to be compatible with the version of GDB it was shipped >> with. Or >> am I missing some use case where this is not true? > > Hi, > > Practically the data-directory is mostly backwards-compatible, except > this > small part which I found (there might be others which I didn't find). > With this > patch, I'm able to run GDB 7.8 with the latest data-directory. > > Is there a reason not to accept it? I'd like to know what other maintainers think about this. We may have already faced this situation before and taken a decision which I'm not aware of. Otherwise, we need to take it now. Simon