From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22718 invoked by alias); 21 Aug 2003 21:34:58 -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 22699 invoked from network); 21 Aug 2003 21:34:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO concert.shout.net) (204.253.184.25) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 21 Aug 2003 21:34:57 -0000 Received: from duracef.shout.net (duracef.shout.net [204.253.184.12]) by concert.shout.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7LLYWWn009420; Thu, 21 Aug 2003 16:34:32 -0500 Received: from duracef.shout.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by duracef.shout.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7LLYWHK032105; Thu, 21 Aug 2003 16:34:32 -0500 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h7LLYVWr032104; Thu, 21 Aug 2003 17:34:31 -0400 Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 21:34:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200308212134.h7LLYVWr032104@duracef.shout.net> To: ac131313@redhat.com, binutils@sources.redhat.com, gcc@sources.redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: expect 5.39 import X-SW-Source: 2003-08/txt/msg00245.txt.bz2 Wow, I didn't even know the new expect release. I gotta give that a spin. I've been using expect 5.38 in my test bed and it's been working fine. Back in January 2003, I compared expect 5.38 with sourceware expect, and the gdb test results were the same. > I'll follow this up in a few weeks when I'm actually in a position to do > an import. Can you file a PR and then I'll attach my attestation to it? By the time "a few weeks" comes up I'll have something to say about expect 5.39 too. Michael C