From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20864 invoked by alias); 29 Mar 2006 04:36:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 20855 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Mar 2006 04:36:15 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nitzan.inter.net.il (HELO nitzan.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.20) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 04:36:15 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-149-82.inter.net.il [80.230.149.82]) by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) with ESMTP id CZP46143 (AUTH halo1); Wed, 29 Mar 2006 06:36:11 +0200 (IST) Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 15:58:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <20060328212328.GA10724@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Tue, 28 Mar 2006 16:23:28 -0500) Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove gdb/nlm subdirectory Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <200603240102.RAA18110@hpsje.cup.hp.com> <8f2776cb0603232024u163c75edm20eb01ff1d476d18@mail.gmail.com> <20060324043008.GA5092@nevyn.them.org> <20060324144727.GA15703@nevyn.them.org> <200603242304.k2ON4iW5014084@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <8f2776cb0603241517h28ed0546m571858c12de40ca2@mail.gmail.com> <20060328211848.GB10392@nevyn.them.org> <20060328212328.GA10724@nevyn.them.org> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-03/txt/msg00340.txt.bz2 > Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 16:23:28 -0500 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 04:18:48PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 10:16:09AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > I interpreted Daniel's message as something like ``I'm not sure, I > > > just know we never heard any problem or patch''. Which to me doesn't > > > sound as firm reasons, just as lack of any information. > > > > That's right. But, Ian has now provided evidence that it wouldn't > > build without hacking the GDB sources since before GDB 6.0; is that > > enough to remove it directly, in your opinion? > > [Oops! Sorry for moving this to gdb, I fat-fingered it. Moving it > back now!] The answer is still yes. ;-)