From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17246 invoked by alias); 4 Dec 2006 18:29:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 17237 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Dec 2006 18:29:40 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nile.gnat.com (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 04 Dec 2006 18:29:32 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D238448D09B; Mon, 4 Dec 2006 13:29:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from nile.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (nile.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 03667-01-8; Mon, 4 Dec 2006 13:29:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from takamaka.act-europe.fr (unknown [70.71.0.212]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88AE148D016; Mon, 4 Dec 2006 13:29:30 -0500 (EST) Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 1000) id CBB7234C099; Mon, 4 Dec 2006 10:29:59 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 18:29:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Marc Kleine-Budde Cc: gdb@sourceware.org, kaz@zeugmasystems.com Subject: Re: GDB 6.5.90 available for testing (GDB 6.6 pre-release) Message-ID: <20061204182959.GC11343@adacore.com> References: <20061202192351.GY3304@adacore.com> <45740FCE.9010801@pengutronix.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <45740FCE.9010801@pengutronix.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-12/txt/msg00022.txt.bz2 > The problem with libtermcap resp. libncurses in a non default location > still exists. See PR2175, PR2176 and > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/2006-10/msg00234.html > > This is a combined version of Kaz and my patch. Please consider applying > or has the Makefile.tpl to be modified? Thanks for the feedback. Unfortunately, there is not enough context in what you provided to understand what happened. It looks like your patch was never reviewed (only from the pieces I have, but I may be wrong). My suggestion, if you'd like this to be included, is to post again the patch on gdb-patches, and ask for review. Use the patch tracker if necessary to make sure it doesn't get overlooked (but this does NOT guaranty fast review). Once it is head, then we can discuss whether we want this patch in the branch or not. -- Joel