RE: GDB 6.5 release process created

RE: GDB 6.5 release process created

[Qunying Pan]

Hello:

I noticed the gdb/configure file in this prerelease was generated by
autoconf 2.59d instead of autoconf 2.59. Should we fix it before release or
we are going to go with autoconf 2.59d?



Thanks!


Qunying




-----Original Message-----
From: gdb-announce-owner@sourceware.org
[mailto:gdb-announce-owner@sourceware.org] On Behalf Of Joel Brobecker
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 12:48 PM
To: gdb-announce@sources.redhat.com
Subject: GDB 6.5 release process created

Hello,

A quick message to announce that the GDB 6.5 branch has just been
created.

The prerelease snapshots will be available at:

    ftp://sources.redhat.com/pub/gdb/snapshots/branch/gdb.tar.bz2

The sources are also accessible via CVS:

    cvs -d :pserver:anoncvs@sources.redhat.com:/cvs/src co -r gdb_6_5-branch
gdb

This announcement will also shortly be posted on the GDB web site at:

    http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/

Enjoy,
-- 
Joel

Re: GDB 6.5 release process created

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 10:29:44AM -0700, Qunying Pan wrote:
> Hello:
> 
> I noticed the gdb/configure file in this prerelease was generated by
> autoconf 2.59d instead of autoconf 2.59. Should we fix it before release or
> we are going to go with autoconf 2.59d?

Do you think it makes a major difference?  I hope it won't.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery

Re: GDB 6.5 release process created

[Joseph S. Myers]

On Thu, 18 May 2006, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:

> On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 10:29:44AM -0700, Qunying Pan wrote:
> > Hello:
> > 
> > I noticed the gdb/configure file in this prerelease was generated by
> > autoconf 2.59d instead of autoconf 2.59. Should we fix it before release or
> > we are going to go with autoconf 2.59d?
> 
> Do you think it makes a major difference?  I hope it won't.

It changes the default infodir and mandir (to follow a more recent version 
of the GNU Coding Standards), so if different subdirectories use different 
versions then different subdirectories may install documentation in 
different places.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com

RE: GDB 6.5 release process created

[Qunying Pan]

>> > I noticed the gdb/configure file in this prerelease was generated by
>> > autoconf 2.59d instead of autoconf 2.59. Should we fix it before
release or
>> > we are going to go with autoconf 2.59d?
>> 
>> Do you think it makes a major difference?  I hope it won't.

>It changes the default infodir and mandir (to follow a more recent version 
>of the GNU Coding Standards), so if different subdirectories use different 
>versions then different subdirectories may install documentation in 
>different places.


Thanks for the replies. Doesn't make a major difference, but at least it
will generate a trunk of unrelated diff when a user regenerates configure
file using 2.59 if there is any update. It is a little annoying. It will be
great if we could remain consistent with the version, either 2.59 or 2.59d,
as it won't make much difference with the real result. Since 2.59 is more
widely used, probably it is better to go for? 


Best Regards,



Qunying 

Re: GDB 6.5 release process created

[Mark Kettenis]

> Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 10:25:24 +0000 (UTC)
> From: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@codesourcery.com>
> 
> On Thu, 18 May 2006, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 10:29:44AM -0700, Qunying Pan wrote:
> > > Hello:
> > > 
> > > I noticed the gdb/configure file in this prerelease was generated by
> > > autoconf 2.59d instead of autoconf 2.59. Should we fix it before release or
> > > we are going to go with autoconf 2.59d?
> > 
> > Do you think it makes a major difference?  I hope it won't.
> 
> It changes the default infodir and mandir (to follow a more recent version 
> of the GNU Coding Standards), so if different subdirectories use different 
> versions then different subdirectories may install documentation in 
> different places.

Then I think we should stick to 2.59, until the next official autoconf
release is out.

Mark

Re: GDB 6.5 release process created

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 11:13:34PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 10:25:24 +0000 (UTC)
> > From: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@codesourcery.com>
> > 
> > On Thu, 18 May 2006, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 10:29:44AM -0700, Qunying Pan wrote:
> > > > Hello:
> > > > 
> > > > I noticed the gdb/configure file in this prerelease was generated by
> > > > autoconf 2.59d instead of autoconf 2.59. Should we fix it before release or
> > > > we are going to go with autoconf 2.59d?
> > > 
> > > Do you think it makes a major difference?  I hope it won't.
> > 
> > It changes the default infodir and mandir (to follow a more recent version 
> > of the GNU Coding Standards), so if different subdirectories use different 
> > versions then different subdirectories may install documentation in 
> > different places.
> 
> Then I think we should stick to 2.59, until the next official autoconf
> release is out.

Yes, I agree.  I didn't notice the problem even when I tested
packaging, because the new defaults (/usr/share/info and
/usr/share/doc) are what I've been configuring GDB to use for ages.

The current version is my fault; Debian/unstable upgraded to 2.59d. 
Could someone else please regenerate it for me?  At some point I'll
have to get a local installation of it together, but not tonight.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery