From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17023 invoked by alias); 20 Mar 2006 23:11:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 17014 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Mar 2006 23:11:52 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Mon, 20 Mar 2006 23:11:51 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1FLTXQ-0002M2-Ee; Mon, 20 Mar 2006 18:11:48 -0500 Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 04:36:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Steve Ellcey Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: gdb autoconf question (gdb/nlm subdirectory) Message-ID: <20060320231148.GA9035@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Steve Ellcey , gdb@sourceware.org References: <200603202304.PAA13729@hpsje.cup.hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200603202304.PAA13729@hpsje.cup.hp.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2006-03/txt/msg00148.txt.bz2 On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 03:04:53PM -0800, Steve Ellcey wrote: > > I am looking at what version of autoconf parts of the src tree are using > because I want to update libtool and that requires that everything use a > autoconf 2.5 or later. > > Almost all of gdb is using autoconf 2.59, but the gdb/nlm directory, for > some reason, is still configured with autoconf 2.13. Does anyone know > why? > > I ran autoconf 2.59 on the current configure.in file in gdb/nlm and it > seemed to work OK. I didn't get any errors or warnings from autoconf. > The resulting configure file is quite different due to changes between > autoconf 2.13 and 2.59 but it looked OK and I didn't do anymore testing > because it looks like this subdirectory is only used by netware targets > and I don't have one of those. > > Does anyone know why the gdb/nlm subdirectory couldn't be changed to use > autoconf 2.59? Not I. But, in fact, I know no reason why it couldn't be removed, either - I don't have any idea if that code still works and I haven't heard of anyone using it. In the mean time, we can probably just upgrade it, but let's wait a little bit to see if anyone else has an opinion. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery