From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3863 invoked by alias); 19 Jun 2009 17:28:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 3853 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Jun 2009 17:28:58 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:28:51 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7C7310D6B; Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:28:49 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (209.195.188.212.nauticom.net [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C511A10D65; Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:28:49 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MHhtQ-0004vt-R9; Fri, 19 Jun 2009 13:28:48 -0400 Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:28:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Richard Earnshaw Cc: gdb@sourceware.org, Samuel Bronson Subject: Re: What is keeping GDB in CVS ? Message-ID: <20090619172848.GA18945@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Richard Earnshaw , gdb@sourceware.org, Samuel Bronson References: <87r5xgqk0k.wl%naesten@gmail.com> <20090619162308.GA13968@caradoc.them.org> <20090619162801.GA14773@caradoc.them.org> <20090619163753.GA9700@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <20090619164943.GA16137@caradoc.them.org> <1245430587.11675.47.camel@pc960.cambridge.arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1245430587.11675.47.camel@pc960.cambridge.arm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2009-06/txt/msg00200.txt.bz2 On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 05:56:27PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote: > As someone who builds complete cross toolchains on a regular basis, I'd > prefer for things not to become too fragmented. My preferred split > would be for those tools that share source infrastructure to remain > combined (binutils/gas/gdb) and maybe split out the others. It would be > a right royal pain to have to edit three copies of an identical file > when developing and testing -- it's bad enough having gcc outside of the > infrastructure. FWIW, I see this as a problem we could solve with scripts and/or docs; I've done this using symlinks to binutils plenty of times. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery