Re: What is keeping GDB in CVS ?

[Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@sourceware.org>]

On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 05:17:54PM +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>I still think that the various projects merged under the "src" umbrella
>>should be pulled apart and given their own repositories.  There is
>>really, for instance, no reason for Cygwin or cgen, which are non-FSF
>>projects, to be intermingled with gdb and binutils.
>
>The cpu directory, however, does need including in binutils checkouts
>because it provides the source code to generated files there, even if
>it might otherwise be seen as part of cgen.  (I agree regarding Cygwin;
>likewise the copies of tcl and tk that are still present in src
>checkouts.)
>
>However, we have so far been unable to keep shared files reliably in
>sync between gcc and src.  The following files should be identical, but
>aren't right now.
>
>Makefile.def Makefile.in Makefile.tpl configure configure.ac
>config/ChangeLog config/lead-dot.m4 config/mh-cygwin config/tls.m4
>config/unwind_ipinfo.m4 config/warnings.m4 include/ChangeLog-9103

So maybe they shouldn't be *shared*.  There could be just one copy.  I
think everyone knows that you'll have problems as soon as you start
duplicating data.  This is no exception.

I doubt that the gcc project would think it was a good idea but we could
just break libiberty and the top-level configury into a separate
repository too.  Then when you make a change to a file, everyone gets
the change and people will squawk immediately when you make a change to
one of these files for gcc which happens to break a binutils build.

cgf