[ADMINISTRIVIA] New RDA mailing list

[ADMINISTRIVIA] New RDA mailing list

[Christopher Faylor]

I've just created an RDA mailing list: rda at sources dot redhat dot
com.  It is intended for discussions about and patches for RDA.  You can
subscribe to it in the usual way.  Either send email to

rda-subscribe at sources dot redhat dot com

or visit the http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html web page and subscribe
using the form.

I also created a web site for rda but it has no content yet.  Volunteers
welcome.  Changes to the web site are through cvs, just like all of the
web pages on sources dot redhat dot com.

Please send any questions or observations about rda to this mailing list,
including questions about what the mailing list should be used for, what
rda is, etc.

cgf

Re: [ADMINISTRIVIA] New RDA mailing list

[Christopher Faylor]

[Reply-To set to the rda mailing list]

(what is it about seeing email in a mailing list that makes you see
the details that you missed?)

On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 10:40:54PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>I've just created an RDA mailing list: rda at sources dot redhat dot
>com.  It is intended for discussions about and patches for RDA.  You can
>subscribe to it in the usual way.  Either send email to
>
>rda-subscribe at sources dot redhat dot com
>
>or visit the http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html web page and subscribe
>using the form.
>
>I also created a web site for rda but it has no content yet.  Volunteers
>welcome.  Changes to the web site are through cvs, just like all of the
>web pages on sources dot redhat dot com.
>
>Please send any questions or observations about rda to this mailing list,
>including questions about what the mailing list should be used for, what
>rda is, etc.

I should point out that rda stands for "remote debug agent".  It's
intended to be used to debug applications on systems other than the
local system using gdb's remote protocol.

If you want more details, please ask on the list.

cgf

Re: [ADMINISTRIVIA] New RDA mailing list

[Pierre Muller]

At 04:40 27/11/2002, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>I've just created an RDA mailing list: rda at sources dot redhat dot
>com.  It is intended for discussions about and patches for RDA.  You can
>subscribe to it in the usual way.  Either send email to
>
>rda-subscribe at sources dot redhat dot com
>
>or visit the http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html web page and subscribe
>using the form.
>
>I also created a web site for rda but it has no content yet.  Volunteers
>welcome.  Changes to the web site are through cvs, just like all of the
>web pages on sources dot redhat dot com.
>
>Please send any questions or observations about rda to this mailing list,
>including questions about what the mailing list should be used for, what
>rda is, etc.
>
>cgf

Hi Christopher,

does that mean that things like my RFC
[RFC] Correct gdbserver register packets

http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-11/msg00652.html

about a modification to gdbserver should be discussed in that mailing list?


Pierre Muller
Institut Charles Sadron
6,rue Boussingault
F 67083 STRASBOURG CEDEX (France)
mailto:muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr
Phone : (33)-3-88-41-40-07  Fax : (33)-3-88-41-40-99

Re: [ADMINISTRIVIA] New RDA mailing list

[Andrew Cagney]

> Hi Christopher,
> 
> does that mean that things like my RFC
> [RFC] Correct gdbserver register packets
> 
> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-11/msg00652.html
> 
> about a modification to gdbserver should be discussed in that mailing list?

No.  GDBSERVER is part of GDB (which is part of the FSF's GNU project) 
and it should continue to be discussed here.

Andrew

Re: [ADMINISTRIVIA] New RDA mailing list

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 10:18:22AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
> >Hi Christopher,
> >
> >does that mean that things like my RFC
> >[RFC] Correct gdbserver register packets
> >
> >http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-11/msg00652.html
> >
> >about a modification to gdbserver should be discussed in that mailing list?
> 
> No.  GDBSERVER is part of GDB (which is part of the FSF's GNU project) 
> and it should continue to be discussed here.

I really wish we could come to some resolution about the overlap. 
Should we sacrifice the FSF-owned gdbserver project in favor of
extending RDA?  As it is, there's a substantial amount of duplicated
effort.  I hate seeing effort wasted.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer

Re: [ADMINISTRIVIA] New RDA mailing list

[Andrew Cagney]

>> No.  GDBSERVER is part of GDB (which is part of the FSF's GNU project) 
>> and it should continue to be discussed here.
> 
> 
> I really wish we could come to some resolution about the overlap. 
> Should we sacrifice the FSF-owned gdbserver project in favor of
> extending RDA?  As it is, there's a substantial amount of duplicated
> effort.  I hate seeing effort wasted.

gdb/gdbserver/ is the FSF's (and hence GDB's) remote debug agent.  There 
is no benefit to the FSF, and its objectives, in replacing something (C) 
FSF with something (C) Red Hat.

Andrew

Re: [ADMINISTRIVIA] New RDA mailing list

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 05:48:09PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
> >>No.  GDBSERVER is part of GDB (which is part of the FSF's GNU project) 
> >>and it should continue to be discussed here.
> >
> >
> >I really wish we could come to some resolution about the overlap. 
> >Should we sacrifice the FSF-owned gdbserver project in favor of
> >extending RDA?  As it is, there's a substantial amount of duplicated
> >effort.  I hate seeing effort wasted.
> 
> gdb/gdbserver/ is the FSF's (and hence GDB's) remote debug agent.  There 
> is no benefit to the FSF, and its objectives, in replacing something (C) 
> FSF with something (C) Red Hat.

There is no benefit to the community in having a publicly developed RDA
that I can see.  Right now I don't believe it has any features that
gdbserver doesn't, although I could be wrong - I only checked briefly -
I know that it used to have threads support when gdbserver didn't but
we implemented that before RDA was released.

And now Red Hat employees can contribute things like tracepoint support
to the community by adding them to the (c) Red Hat RDA, when the
community would benefit as much or more having them in gdbserver.  So
we get two stubs with mostly-overlapping but different feature sets.

Obviously Red Hat doesn't want to drop RDA in favor of gdbserver.  But
having gdbserver as a second-rate cousin until someone spends weeks
playing feature catchup with RDA (e.g. I or someone else finds the time
to implement the introspect stuff in gdbserver, if I can even do it...)
does no one but Red Hat any good.

I'm sorry to keep harping on this unpleasant subject, but it really
irks me.  There's a gdbserver project out there to contribute to.  It
was in bad shape; I like to think we've put it back together now!

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer

Re: [ADMINISTRIVIA] New RDA mailing list

[Chris G. Demetriou]

At Sun, 1 Dec 2002 23:19:21 +0000 (UTC), "Daniel Jacobowitz" wrote:
> There is no benefit to the community in having a publicly developed RDA
> that I can see.

I got all excited about RDA when i saw the announcement, because i was
hoping that it wasn't GPL'd.  As it is, it's GPL'd but Copyright Red
Hat.  *sigh*

It seems to me that this means that it pretty much equivalent to
gdbserver (modulo implementation or feature differences) **EXCEPT**:

        * RH can use it however they wish w/o distributing source, and

        * RH can sell licenses to third parties, to allow them to use
          it under whatever terms they're willing to pay for.

I think a non-GPL'd (i.e., "actually-free software" 8-)
gdbserver/RDA-like thing would be of great benefit to the community.

However, like you said, i think that the existing RDA is of benefit
only to RedHat.  Potential users who want to develop it or develop
using it should be aware of that.


cgd
-- 
Chris Demetriou - cgd@netbsd.org - http://www.netbsd.org/People/Pages/cgd.html
Disclaimer: Not speaking for NetBSD, just expressing my own opinion.

Re: [ADMINISTRIVIA] New RDA mailing list

[Andrew Cagney]

> I think a non-GPL'd (i.e., "actually-free software" 8-)
> gdbserver/RDA-like thing would be of great benefit to the community.

Having gdbserver licenced under something that isn't the GPL would not 
be serving the best interests of the Free Software Community.  Remember, 
  The Free Software Foundation is, after all, a moment.  One of that 
moment's objectives is to make all software Free.

http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/

Andrew