From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13434 invoked by alias); 14 Jul 2005 18:38:39 -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 13238 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Jul 2005 18:38:20 -0000 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 18:38:20 +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 j6EIcI2q020166 for ; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 14:38:18 -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 j6EIcIV22348; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 14:38:18 -0400 Received: from livre.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br (vpn50-35.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.35]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j6EIcG4Q028734; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 14:38:17 -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 j6EIcFMO013777; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 15:38:15 -0300 Received: (from aoliva@localhost) by livre.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id j6EIcBMC013774; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 15:38:11 -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> <20050705174842.GA30006@nevyn.them.org> From: Alexandre Oliva Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 18:38:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20050705174842.GA30006@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/msg00119.txt.bz2 On Jul 5, 2005, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 02:33:12PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> 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. > It's obvious that we don't agree. But does anyone besides yourself > still see value in this? I guess not, so I'll withdraw my objection, since it looks like I'm by myself, and I don't want to be the one on the way of, erhm, progress? :-) -- 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}