* 5.1 README
@ 2001-07-07 10:25 Andrew Cagney
2001-07-08 1:19 ` Eli Zaretskii
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Cagney @ 2001-07-07 10:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: GDB Discussion
Hello,
Attached is the 5.0 README. It hasn't changed (I'll do a s/5.0/5.1/).
However, it occures to me that it should probably mention how to build
GDB on some of these newer more obscure systems (64 bit solaris comes to
mind).
Andrew
From chastain@cygnus.com Sat Jul 07 10:34:00 2001
From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <chastain@cygnus.com>
To: cagney@sourceware.cygnus.com
Cc: gdb@sourceware.cygnus.com
Subject: Re: src/gdb ChangeLog TODO blockframe.c dbxread.c ...
Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2001 10:34:00 -0000
Message-id: <200107071635.JAA15328@bosch.cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-07/msg00058.html
Content-length: 138
I disabled Java in my weekly gdb tests around 2001-05-18. I've made a
note to re-enable it in the future (but not this week).
MichaelC
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: 5.1 README
2001-07-07 10:25 5.1 README Andrew Cagney
@ 2001-07-08 1:19 ` Eli Zaretskii
2001-07-19 11:53 ` Andrew Cagney
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2001-07-08 1:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Cagney; +Cc: GDB Discussion
On Sat, 7 Jul 2001, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> Attached is the 5.0 README.
One problem with this text is that it never mentions "make install",
nor does it tell that to install the Info docs one needs to say
"make install-info" (IMHO a misfeature which I wish would go away
rather sooner than later).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: 5.1 README
2001-07-08 1:19 ` Eli Zaretskii
@ 2001-07-19 11:53 ` Andrew Cagney
2001-07-23 9:38 ` Eli Zaretskii
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Cagney @ 2001-07-19 11:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: GDB Discussion
Several things I've noticed:
o it recommends a separate build tree
yet gives the same build tree example
first
o similar, all the other examples assume
build==source.
o it doesn't mention building PDF
Andrew
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: 5.1 README
2001-07-19 11:53 ` Andrew Cagney
@ 2001-07-23 9:38 ` Eli Zaretskii
2001-07-23 13:56 ` Andrew Cagney
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2001-07-23 9:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Cagney; +Cc: GDB Discussion
On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> Several things I've noticed:
>
> o it recommends a separate build tree
> yet gives the same build tree example
> first
IIRC, this was discussed in the past, and we decided to leave it as it is
now. I don't see anything wrong with the current structure: after all,
for a typical user, keeping the source directory pristine is not very
important. Those who care will read the recommendation and act upon it.
> o it doesn't mention building PDF
This can be easily added. Should I do that?
P.S. Somebody should make sure the PDF version indeed can be built with
the popular version(s) of PDFTeX, before we advertise that.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: 5.1 README
2001-07-23 9:38 ` Eli Zaretskii
@ 2001-07-23 13:56 ` Andrew Cagney
2001-07-25 8:01 ` Eli Zaretskii
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Cagney @ 2001-07-23 13:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: GDB Discussion
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>
>
>> Several things I've noticed:
>>
>> o it recommends a separate build tree
>> yet gives the same build tree example
>> first
>
>
> IIRC, this was discussed in the past, and we decided to leave it as it is
> now. I don't see anything wrong with the current structure: after all,
> for a typical user, keeping the source directory pristine is not very
> important. Those who care will read the recommendation and act upon it.
Point taken, not something to debate this late in the game.
>> o it doesn't mention building PDF
>
>
> This can be easily added. Should I do that?
Yes please.
> P.S. Somebody should make sure the PDF version indeed can be built with
> the popular version(s) of PDFTeX, before we advertise that.
Oh, great :-) How many are there? Looks like all the machines I have
access to have teTeX (of one varity or another) installed. That
includes sources which is used for the nightly PDF snapshots.
Andrew
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: 5.1 README
2001-07-23 13:56 ` Andrew Cagney
@ 2001-07-25 8:01 ` Eli Zaretskii
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2001-07-25 8:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Cagney; +Cc: GDB Discussion
On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >> o it doesn't mention building PDF
> >
> > This can be easily added. Should I do that?
>
> Yes please.
Done.
> > P.S. Somebody should make sure the PDF version indeed can be built with
> > the popular version(s) of PDFTeX, before we advertise that.
>
>
> Oh, great :-) How many are there? Looks like all the machines I have
> access to have teTeX (of one varity or another) installed.
I think this is enough, especially since we've decided to require
Texinfo 4.0.
(Personally, I like DviPDFm better than PDFTeX, since production of DVI
files is normally less prone to problems, and DviPDFm has never failed to
produce a PDF file from a valid DVI.)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2001-07-25 8:01 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2001-07-07 10:25 5.1 README Andrew Cagney
2001-07-08 1:19 ` Eli Zaretskii
2001-07-19 11:53 ` Andrew Cagney
2001-07-23 9:38 ` Eli Zaretskii
2001-07-23 13:56 ` Andrew Cagney
2001-07-25 8:01 ` Eli Zaretskii
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox