From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13773 invoked by alias); 10 Sep 2002 03:55:31 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 13765 invoked from network); 10 Sep 2002 03:55:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO molenda.com) (192.220.74.81) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 10 Sep 2002 03:55:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 88223 invoked by uid 19025); 10 Sep 2002 03:54:40 -0000 Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 20:55:00 -0000 From: Jason Molenda To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Adam Fedor , gdb Subject: Re: Apple's Objective-C language patch Message-ID: <20020909205440.A87380@molenda.com> References: <3D7D0186.8020103@doc.com> <20020909173318.A50843@molenda.com> <3D7D6762.2010300@doc.com> <3D7D6BB7.30403@ges.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <3D7D6BB7.30403@ges.redhat.com>; from ac131313@ges.redhat.com on Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 11:49:11PM -0400 X-SW-Source: 2002-09/txt/msg00068.txt.bz2 On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 11:49:11PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > Believe it or not, very recently added to my things to do today list is > to get an answer to the question: can a third party take random > Apple/GDB sources and contribute them to the FSF. Speaking for all of Apple as its duly appointed representative in all things gdb related (heh heh), I declare yes! Yes, I tell you! Seriously though, we've got a blanket assignment on file at the FSF for gcc and gdb, and the only reason the code isn't getting submitted is because of time being spent on other activities by the two Apple gdb developers. If there are contributors who want to help but don't want to mess with Apple's anoncvs server I'd be willing to tar up another copy of our sources (Klee merged it just a couple weeks ago with the FSF sources), but this isn't the sort of thing I'd want to do on a frequent basis.. Jason PS- if that third party developer does do nonobvious/nontrivial changes to the patches to get them approved in FSF-gdb, I'd imagine the third party developer would technically need an FSF assignment on file before they could be accepted.