From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28808 invoked by alias); 24 Jan 2012 22:11:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 28795 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Jan 2012 22:11:09 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-vx0-f169.google.com (HELO mail-vx0-f169.google.com) (209.85.220.169) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 22:10:55 +0000 Received: by vcbfl11 with SMTP id fl11so3658708vcb.0 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 14:10:54 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.52.71.80 with SMTP id s16mr6427795vdu.131.1327443054276; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 14:10:54 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.71.80 with SMTP id s16mr6427786vdu.131.1327443054192; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 14:10:54 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.229.1 with HTTP; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 14:10:54 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20120124194044.GA2855@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <1317251996-12146-1-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> <20120123181125.GA26683@host2.jankratochvil.net> <4F1DA92A.4020207@redhat.com> <20120123210850.GA28792@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120123221706.GA21051@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120124143609.GA20367@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120124194044.GA2855@host2.jankratochvil.net> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 22:20:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [patch] Do not open Python scripts twice #2 [Re: [RFC] Crash sourcing Python script on Windows] From: Doug Evans To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: Pedro Alves , Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-System-Of-Record: true X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkRah9XJet0a5IEjC0r02FF+2v15q/2LjcUuWLzwnYkA9Cib04dS930fViy0xmhrBEdbSouIwcdAr5Ha2i3C/aqQPlQNVf1JYa+YT61Oec1e37QOvELxnLkb0P8Dr3e5SfEywcP0VeGr/Hp+SM/Z2P8N6UV1w== Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: 2012-01/txt/msg00854.txt.bz2 On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:32:18 +0100, Doug Evans wrote: > > Skipped the discussion what can be more statistically useful and rather c= hose: > >> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 6:36 AM, Jan Kratochvil > wrote: >> > And it does not make sense to discuss what is better or worse, it is o= nly >> > important the standard is to not do directories relocation. >> >> Well, the important thing is to pick what works for the right reasons, >> not introduce unwarranted incompatibilities, etc. > > If you want to patch other 10000 or how many packages so they all use > directory relocations, you are free to do. =A0I prefer to remove the dire= ctory > relocations from the single (maybe there are few of such) differing GDB > package instead. I don't deserve that. :-( > As a next step of this discussion I can only submit a ticket to FESCo (Fe= dora > Engineering Steering Committee) to validate whether my Fedora > non-relocatability patch/idea is right or not. > > >> [AIUC] I'd instead impose requiring chroot on Fedora package testers >> than regular users. > > Normal users always use only the system installed GDB. =A0Anything else is > unsupported. Are contexts being conflated here? I thought we were talking about what should be in FSF GDB, not Fedora GDB. >> That still doesn't help me decide whether this patch should go in (as is= ). >> If you wanted to punt on windows and just always impose a double >> open(), I'd be ok with that, for example. > > Without MS-Windows the Joel's patch would not be invented and we would ju= st > always do single open() like before. =A0Or I do not understand it now. s/impose a double open()/impose a double open() on windows/ and skip the autoconf test to try to decide whether the libcs are compatible (which as currently written you yourself have "fear[s]" of). [the word "fear" can suggest far greater seriousness than is warranted here, but it's your word :-)] OTOH, if someone comes up with a succinct and solid test, great.