From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2017 invoked by alias); 22 Apr 2009 17:13:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 2003 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Apr 2009 17:13:23 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx2.redhat.com (HELO mx2.redhat.com) (66.187.237.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 17:13:18 +0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26]) by mx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n3MHCV9M011471; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:12:31 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n3MHCUc4028031; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:12:30 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (vpn-14-158.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.14.158]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n3MHCTHf015163; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:12:29 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 79C20888034; Wed, 22 Apr 2009 11:12:28 -0600 (MDT) To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA/commit] prefer in-tree libiconv over the system libiconv References: <20090420183619.GB5858@adacore.com> <20090420213559.GS2904@adacore.com> <20090421210032.GF23807@adacore.com> <20090422162201.GF5858@adacore.com> From: Tom Tromey Reply-To: tromey@redhat.com Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 17:13:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20090422162201.GF5858@adacore.com> (Joel Brobecker's message of "Wed\, 22 Apr 2009 09\:22\:01 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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/msg00594.txt.bz2 Joel> I'd like to do the same for libexpat. Thoughts? Sounds reasonable to me. Do it. Tom