From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18258 invoked by alias); 29 Nov 2010 21:38:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 18217 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Nov 2010 21:38:30 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 21:38:24 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oATLcLf3032153 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 29 Nov 2010 16:38:21 -0500 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id oATLcKCY027189; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 16:38:21 -0500 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oATLcKgd008035; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 16:38:20 -0500 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 0818037817F; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 14:38:19 -0700 (MST) From: Tom Tromey To: dje@google.com (Doug Evans) Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] Don't install gdb.PYTHONDIR if -nx References: <20101129003949.502FC246199@ruffy.mtv.corp.google.com> Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 21:38:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20101129003949.502FC246199@ruffy.mtv.corp.google.com> (Doug Evans's message of "Sun, 28 Nov 2010 16:39:49 -0800 (PST)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (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: 2010-11/txt/msg00480.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Doug" == Doug Evans writes: Doug> I don't entirely like the patch, it's extending -nx into Doug> new territory, e.g., -nx controlling whether certain commands Doug> are available or not. It shouldn't matter, from the user's Doug> perspective, whether the commands are implemented in python. I agree. In particular I think it is reasonable to want to use python commands from a batch script, but such a script is likely to use -nx. Doug> However, the only other alternative I can think of is to Doug> add a new option, and I'm guessing that's unacceptable. I think it would be fine to add one. Either way I think the documentation needs to be updated. Jan pointed out that this is PR 12227. Tom