Re: [patch 2/2+rfc+doc] Install gcore by default (+new man page)

[Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>]

On 04/08/2013 07:54 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>>> "Jan" == Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> writes:
> 
> Jan> Leaving it pending for RFC if gcore should be installed at all
> 
> I think it should be, because it is useful and "why not?".

A couple points to consider:

- Should we install it on hosts/builds that don't support gcore
  with the native target?

- Should we install it on mingw hosts (where there'll be
  no shell capable of running the script available)?

> 
> Jan> and also if
> Jan> current
> Jan> 	src/gdb/gcore.in + src/gdb/gcore
> Jan> should not be called for example like before
> Jan> 	src/gdb/gdb_gcore.sh.in + src/gdb/gdb_gcore.sh
> 
> I like your new naming.

Me too.

> 
> Jan> <tab>-completion) or if it should not be called with .sh as
> Jan> 	src/gdb/gcore.sh.in + src/gdb/gcore.sh
> Jan> although I do not see a reason for it, there are some *.sh files but those are
> Jan> not installed.
> 
> I think having ".sh" on an installed script is a mistake.
> For one thing, if you change the implementation of the command then you
> get confusion -- either the ".sh" is actively wrong, or you have to change
> the name.

Definitely agreed.

-- 
Pedro Alves