From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8105 invoked by alias); 11 Apr 2009 21:26:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 8095 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Apr 2009 21:26:25 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout2.012.net.il (HELO mtaout2.012.net.il) (84.95.2.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 11 Apr 2009 21:26:20 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.i_mtaout2.012.net.il by i_mtaout2.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) id <0KHY00I00GAJ0H00@i_mtaout2.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Sun, 12 Apr 2009 00:26:17 +0300 (IDT) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.229.240.185]) by i_mtaout2.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) with ESMTPA id <0KHY003ELGVS5DX0@i_mtaout2.012.net.il>; Sun, 12 Apr 2009 00:26:17 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 21:26:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [commit] Fix prototype related breakage in go32-nat.c In-reply-to: <200904112102.57302.pedro@codesourcery.com> To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <83skkeopab.fsf@gnu.org> References: <834owvoyvb.fsf@gnu.org> <200904111916.10115.pedro@codesourcery.com> <83ws9rng84.fsf@gnu.org> <200904112102.57302.pedro@codesourcery.com> 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: 2009-04/txt/msg00225.txt.bz2 > From: Pedro Alves > Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 21:02:57 +0100 > > You know *now* that this happened before the dispute, but you didn't > when you posted the patch and the question "Didn't we agree at the > time that the prototypes should be corrected as well?" --- why did > you need to ask it? Because it seemed to me that the change which failed to update the prototypes was the subject of that dispute. But that was due to a honest mistake, whereas the comment about ``needless forward declarations'' was not. > I can only assume that people interested in keeping the port alive > will be the people that build it most frequently. And I assumed > that the port maintainer would build it regularly. I'm doing my best. I'm alone. There's no one to come and help. It's not easy, what with my non-existent free time, of which I invest a large portion into timely reviews of the GDB docs patches (which of course has priority over taking care of the DJGPP build). Back in August I thought that the DJGPP port had no users, because I didn't hear from the DJGPP news group for a long time. But it turned out this was because of some snafu between my account on gnu.org and DJ's server, which DJ fixed a couple of months ago, and since then I've seen that the forum is alive and kicking, and people are evidently still using DJGPP ports. So I'm trying to revive GDB as well, after I did the same with Emacs. It's not easy, but I'm doing it. All I'm asking for is a bit of sympathy, and a small effort here and there. Is that too much to ask from a community to which I contribute every single week?