From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23011 invoked by alias); 9 Oct 2002 18:41:56 -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 22998 invoked from network); 9 Oct 2002 18:41:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 9 Oct 2002 18:41:56 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17zMi7-0004bM-00; Wed, 09 Oct 2002 14:41:35 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17zLn1-000367-00; Wed, 09 Oct 2002 14:42:35 -0400 Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 11:41:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Kevin Buettner Cc: fv@epitools.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: libremote status? Message-ID: <20021009184235.GB11605@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Kevin Buettner , fv@epitools.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <3D2F20B9.20208.10CBA01@localhost> <3DA34315.26790.1AD0844@localhost> <1021009163952.ZM20907@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1021009163952.ZM20907@localhost.localdomain> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg00091.txt.bz2 On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 09:39:53AM -0700, Kevin Buettner wrote: > On Oct 8, 8:41pm, Fred Viles wrote: > > > The middle of August having passed us by, time for a status update > > please? > > The name of ``libremote'' has been changed to ``rda'' (for Red Hat > Debug Agent). The sources are available for cvs checkout from > sources.redhat.com via the rda module. We still need to put up a > project web page, set up a mailing list, and formally announce it. Well. Didn't even notice it get added to my checkout. And there it is, the remote thread debugging package Red Hat implemented years ago that couldn't be released. I assume that, given the name change, there is no plan for RDA to be contributed to the FSF? And that, as such, there can be no effort to combine all this beautiful server architecture with the fact that we have a working gdbserver implementation, and active development on it? [Apologies if I come out a little bitter-sounding. I had to do several months of development based on the non-availability of this code. And now, when I'm trying to find an architecture by which I can merge the gdbserver native support and the gdb native support, this beauty comes along - and we can't use it. I understand the realities of the situation.] -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer