From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-50599-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 28626 invoked by alias); 1 Sep 2007 14:22:56 -0000
Received: (qmail 28618 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Sep 2007 14:22:56 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from heller.inter.net.il (HELO heller.inter.net.il) (213.8.233.23)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 01 Sep 2007 14:22:51 +0000
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-200-121.inter.net.il [80.230.200.121]) 	by heller.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3a-GA) 	with ESMTP id DMW70816 (AUTH halo1); 	Sat, 1 Sep 2007 17:22:16 +0300 (IDT)
Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 14:22:00 -0000
Message-Id: <ufy1yv52d.fsf@gnu.org>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, roland@redhat.com
In-reply-to: <200709011325.l81DPEHK015069@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> (message 	from Mark Kettenis on Sat, 1 Sep 2007 15:25:14 +0200 (CEST))
Subject: Re: [patch] build-id .debug files load (like .gnu_debuglink)
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
References: <20070824180450.GA4216@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <20070824182028.GA19512@caradoc.them.org> <20070825224914.GA11255@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <20070825235805.GA11876@caradoc.them.org> <20070826094053.GA31348@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <u642w11sy.fsf@gnu.org> <20070901081934.GA31205@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <ups12vfro.fsf@gnu.org> <20070901113530.GA30667@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <uir6uvayc.fsf@gnu.org> <20070901131212.GA32719@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <200709011325.l81DPEHK015069@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2007-09/txt/msg00008.txt.bz2

> Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 15:25:14 +0200 (CEST)
> From: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
> CC: eliz@gnu.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, roland@redhat.com
> 
> I think we should stick with references to official GNU releases in
> our documentation.

I'd support that if most installations had official versions.  But
that doesn't seem to be the case in the recent years: almost every
GNU/Linux box I get my hands on have "2.aa.bb YYYYMMDD" version on it.
Here's a typical example (from none other than a gnu.org machine,
btw):

    eliz@fencepost:~$ ld --version
    GNU ld version 2.16.91 20060118 Debian GNU/Linux

Given that this seems to be the rule rather than exception, I see no
sense in insisting that unofficial versions do not exist, or aren't
used widely enough to be mentioned in the docs.