From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3166 invoked by alias); 18 Jan 2002 17:49:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 3134 invoked from network); 18 Jan 2002 17:49:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.cygnus.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Jan 2002 17:49:22 -0000 Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.cygnus.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 406053D29; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 12:49:22 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3C486021.3080706@cygnus.com> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 09:49:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:0.9.7) Gecko/20020103 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: thorpej@wasabisystems.com Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Support for alpha*-*-netbsd* References: <20020117224847.P15405@dr-evil.shagadelic.org> <3C4832FB.9060708@cygnus.com> <20020118081514.A28259@dr-evil.shagadelic.org> <3C48585E.5080506@cygnus.com> <20020118092840.E28259@dr-evil.shagadelic.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-01/txt/msg00513.txt.bz2 > On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 12:16:14PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > > For me, the problem is bigger. I'm trying to keep the decision to > > accept a new [native] target both simple and transparent. Or to put it > > another way, I do not want to put my self in a situtation where I'm open > > to suggestions of bias - allowing one person or organization to > > contribute a target non-multi-arch when, for a second, I refuse. > > Ok, I understand that problem... I suppose another way to look at it is > "the alpha target already exists, the alpha-bsd configuration of that > target already exists, this is merely a new variant of an existing target". > > :-) Yes, during the 18 month period between 5.0 and 5.1 that was indeed the case. NetBSD/Arm was was originally submitted just days before 5.1 went out and so was accepted on that basis. Andrew