From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4449 invoked by alias); 10 Jun 2004 14:03:22 -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 4434 invoked from network); 10 Jun 2004 14:03:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 10 Jun 2004 14:03:20 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i5AE3Ki7002380; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 10:03:20 -0400 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (to-dhcp51.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.151]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i5AE3J008434; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 10:03:19 -0400 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 164702B9D; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 10:03:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <40C86A25.5080504@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 14:03:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-GB; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20040217 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ben Elliston , DJ Delorie Cc: binutils@sources.redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: top-level removal of dejagnu, expect References: <20040610092223.A1221@mailhub.air.net.au> <200406092340.i59Ne3FT028298@greed.delorie.com> <20040610101446.B3128@mailhub.air.net.au> <200406100214.i5A2Ew3P031152@greed.delorie.com> <20040610121927.A9164@mailhub.air.net.au> <200406100229.i5A2Tvv9031322@greed.delorie.com> <20040610123403.A10027@mailhub.air.net.au> In-Reply-To: <20040610123403.A10027@mailhub.air.net.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-06/txt/msg00224.txt.bz2 >>>I'm not sure why you think moving to one copy of the FSF dejagnu >>>> > sources will disturb that. >> >>> >>> I was concerned about the toplevel build support, not the dejagnu >>> sources. The toplevel makefile/configure can deal with dejagnu being >>> there or not, I see no need to remove such support. > > > The obvious reason to remove such support is to reduce the amount of > stuff to maintain. If having top-level build support for expect and > dejagnu is important to Red Hat, can't Red Hat maintain local patches? If a group need such local changes then it is personally reasonable to expect that group to maintain them locally. Andrew