From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14598 invoked by alias); 7 Apr 2006 15:26:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 14569 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Apr 2006 15:26:06 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.artimi.com (HELO mail.artimi.com) (217.40.213.68) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 07 Apr 2006 15:25:59 +0000 Received: from mail.artimi.com ([192.168.1.3]) by mail.artimi.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 7 Apr 2006 16:25:56 +0100 Received: from rainbow ([192.168.1.165]) by mail.artimi.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 7 Apr 2006 16:25:55 +0100 From: "Dave Korn" To: "'Daniel Jacobowitz'" Cc: "'Bruce Dubbs'" , Subject: RE: Building gdb from source Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2006 15:39:00 -0000 Message-ID: <000a01c65a57$90491100$a501a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <20060407151854.GA23220@nevyn.them.org> Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-04/txt/msg00098.txt.bz2 On 07 April 2006 16:19, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 04:08:31PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote: >> The point is, that a distro should have a consistent set of gcc, binutils >> and gdb. Since binutils and gdb live in the same repository, if you either >> take a consistent snapshot of the cvs, or if you take gdb and binutils >> releases that are roughly-contemporary, they're bound to be 'in-sync' FAPP. > > This is not true. There's no reason to believe that "roughly > contemporary" is good enough. ? Is this because releases could be coming from branches that were branched at very different times? Would it have been more reasonable if I had said "releases that are based on roughly-contemporary branches"? cheers, DaveK -- Can't think of a witty .sigline today....