From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11020 invoked by alias); 5 Jul 2005 17:33:32 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 10965 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Jul 2005 17:33:26 -0000 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Jul 2005 17:33:26 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j65HXJZn018442 for ; Tue, 5 Jul 2005 13:33:25 -0400 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j65HXJV02953; Tue, 5 Jul 2005 13:33:19 -0400 Received: from livre.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br (vpn50-105.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.105]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j65HXHTt028327; Tue, 5 Jul 2005 13:33:18 -0400 Received: from livre.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br (livre.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br [127.0.0.1]) by livre.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j65HXGoH000735; Tue, 5 Jul 2005 14:33:16 -0300 Received: (from aoliva@localhost) by livre.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id j65HXD4Z000729; Tue, 5 Jul 2005 14:33:13 -0300 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: Ben Elliston , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: PATCH Makefile.in References: <20050630063814.A8532@mailhub.air.net.au> <20050703190609.GK13811@nevyn.them.org> <20050704153539.GA22380@nevyn.them.org> From: Alexandre Oliva Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 17:33:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20050704153539.GA22380@nevyn.them.org> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2005-07/txt/msg00061.txt.bz2 On Jul 4, 2005, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 10:46:35AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> This is an argument for the removal of dejagnu and expect from the >> tree, which I agree with. It's the one-line change in the test to >> decide which RUNTEST to use that I'm opposing. I can't imagine such a >> line is too much baggage to carry around. If you think so, well... I >> guess I'll just shut up and wait until your next ports require changes >> in dejagnu. > I keep a local copy of dejagnu in my PATH. I've been doing this for > years (and yes, I do deal with two ports that require changes in > dejagnu). I find this way much more convenient... But not as safe. E.g., I don't want net GCC test runs to be affected by my local changes to dejagnu required by an ongoing port. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}