From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22268 invoked by alias); 21 Aug 2003 22:28:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 22236 invoked from network); 21 Aug 2003 22:28:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (207.219.125.105) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 21 Aug 2003 22:28:47 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFECC2B7F; Thu, 21 Aug 2003 18:28:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3F454791.5080100@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 22:28:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030820 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Cc: binutils@sources.redhat.com, gcc@sources.redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: expect 5.39 import References: <200308212134.h7LLYVWr032104@duracef.shout.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-08/txt/msg00246.txt.bz2 > Wow, I didn't even know the new expect release. I gotta give > that a spin. > > I've been using expect 5.38 in my test bed and it's been working fine. > Back in January 2003, I compared expect 5.38 with sourceware expect, > and the gdb test results were the same. Nice. >> I'll follow this up in a few weeks when I'm actually in a position to do >> an import. > > > Can you file a PR and then I'll attach my attestation to it? Good idea. http://sources.redhat.com/gdb/bugs/1349 > By the time "a few weeks" comes up I'll have something to say about > expect 5.39 too. thanks, Andrew