> On Jul 24, 2015, at 3:53 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > >> From: Sergio Durigan Junior >> Cc: simon.marchi@ericsson.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org >> Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 15:28:58 -0400 >> >> Another good thing about doing this type of check is that every known >> and unknown shell will still work. When we explicitly check for certain >> shell's as you suggest, it means that if we forget any of them its users >> will be negatively impacted. > > I don't think there are so many shells out there that we run a real > risk of forgetting them. And even if we do, there's plenty of time > till the next release to hear from those who might be negatively > impacted. But if you omit a shell, is the user of that shell blocked from using gdb? That’s not a good failure mode. It seems to me that omitting a non-shell is much more forgiving: all that happens is that you don’t get the friendly error message. So that says the explicit list should be of non-shells. paul &j!z޶n:b֫rnr