Re: AW: libGDB architecture

[Jason Molenda <jsm@cygnus.com>]

> Well, I did not make any snapshots yet (btw. how are they done? Running
> `make dist' tells me to look at some etc/ directory but I did not find
> anything useful there ... ?). 


Nothing terribly special.  I use a script.  Basically it does

cvs -Q co -P gdb
mv devo gdb-19990830   (our top-level dir here is called devo)
Sanitize               (an internal script that removes unreleased
                        bits of code as well as the CVS/ directories)

cd gdb-19990830
find . -type f -print | sort > ../manifest
for i in `cat ../manifest`
do
  md5sum $i >> gdb.md5
done

cd ..
tar cf - gdb-19990830 | bzip2 > gdb-19990830.tar.bz2

(lots of stuff to make the diff files)

I can send you the script if you think it'll help save you time.

Jason
From shebs@cygnus.com Tue Aug 31 13:32:00 1999
From: Stan Shebs <shebs@cygnus.com>
To: tromey@cygnus.com
Cc: gdb@sourceware.cygnus.com
Subject: Re: "u" alias
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 13:32:00 -0000
Message-id: <199908312032.NAA11265@andros.cygnus.com>
References: <87iu5wsjns.fsf@cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 1999-q3/msg00266.html
Content-length: 1072

   From: Tom Tromey <tromey@cygnus.com>
   Date: 30 Aug 1999 21:39:35 -0600

   Tonight I discovered that the command "u" is an alias for "until".  I
   don't like this.  I've literally never used the "until" command.
   However, I do use the "up" command every single time I run gdb (I
   can't remember not using it), and I expected "u" to alias "up" by
   default.  Can we change this?

I'm pretty reluctant to do this change.  "up" is only two chars, takes
microscopically longer to type, and so it doesn't seem like a
compelling enough problem to change the standard command set.

   This is ancient code, so I'm sure I'll hear the "somebody relies on
   this" argument.  But does anybody really?  Can we take a poll or
   something?

I would really like to be able to do polls, but the problem is that
there isn't a good list for this.  gdb-announce will get the largest
audience, but even it's kind of small.  I know RMS used to, and maybe
still does, have some way to poll people about proposed Emacs changes;
is anybody up-to-date on that process?

								Stan