From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22180 invoked by alias); 29 Apr 2005 15:32:17 -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 21524 invoked from network); 29 Apr 2005 15:32:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nimbus.ott.qnx.com) (209.226.137.76) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 29 Apr 2005 15:32:06 -0000 Received: from [10.12.1.181] (dhcpa181.ott.qnx.com [10.12.1.181]) by nimbus.ott.qnx.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id J7M2NL9T; Fri, 29 Apr 2005 11:32:06 -0400 Message-ID: <427253B6.5090407@qnx.com> Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 16:04:00 -0000 From: Kris Warkentin User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Kettenis CC: gdb@sourceware.org, mark@codesourcery.com, paul@codesourcery.com, drow@false.org Subject: Re: Windows support in GDB References: <200504291513.j3TFDhjx021040@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> In-Reply-To: <200504291513.j3TFDhjx021040@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2005-04/txt/msg00217.txt.bz2 At QNX we're transitioning our Windows SDK from Cygwin to MinGW so these patches are very useful for us. I would expect that in the long term it will be in our best interest to make sure that this stuff continues working. Of course, I'm just a developer and don't make policy but at least there's one other company that will want to keep this stuff going. cheers, Kris Mark Kettenis wrote: >Guys, I'm getting a bit of an uneasy feeling here. It may be that I'm >getting the wrong impression here, but I've seen quite a bit more >Windows-related patches than I had in mind when Mark started submitted >his first patches and said they were fairly limited and mostly some >configure bits. The problem here is that they mostly concern the >non-POSIX nature of Windows, which sets its quit far apart from the >traditional Unix-like systems that have been converging towards POSIX >for quite some time now. This means that we really need to have some >commitment from the Windows user community for maintaining this stuff. >Otherwise this will become another MetroWerks disaster. > >It's fairly obvious that this development is coming from CodeSourcery. >There's nothing wrong with that, but I'd like to ask CodeSourcery what >their commitment to maintaining this new code is. In the past we have >seen quite a few contributions from embedded sofware companies. In >many cases these contributions were apparently done as contract work, >and after the work was completed the code was never touched again. >Can CodeSourcery gives some clarification on this matter? > >Mark > >