From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16094 invoked by alias); 3 Apr 2011 03:01:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 16086 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Apr 2011 03:00:59 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout23.012.net.il (HELO mtaout23.012.net.il) (80.179.55.175) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 03 Apr 2011 03:00:54 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout23.012.net.il by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0LJ200F002XA9R00@a-mtaout23.012.net.il> for gdb@sourceware.org; Sun, 03 Apr 2011 06:00:52 +0300 (IDT) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.126.47.180]) by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0LJ200FKK31E8Z20@a-mtaout23.012.net.il>; Sun, 03 Apr 2011 06:00:52 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2011 03:01:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: readline rebase 5.1->6.2? In-reply-to: <83y63tvtd2.fsf@gnu.org> To: tromey@redhat.com, jan.kratochvil@redhat.com, gdb@sourceware.org, ktietz@redhat.com Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <83sju0vy1k.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20110322154327.GA8966@host1.jankratochvil.net> <83tyev7z7a.fsf@gnu.org> <20110322194836.GA23104@host1.jankratochvil.net> <83oc537wrs.fsf@gnu.org> <83oc4qpbdw.fsf@gnu.org> <83y63tvtd2.fsf@gnu.org> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-04/txt/msg00007.txt.bz2 > Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2011 13:29:45 +0300 > From: Eli Zaretskii > Cc: jan.kratochvil@redhat.com, gdb@sourceware.org, ktietz@redhat.com > > > From: Tom Tromey > > Cc: jan.kratochvil@redhat.com, gdb@sourceware.org, ktietz@redhat.com > > Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 08:19:32 -0600 > > > > >>>>> "Eli" == Eli Zaretskii writes: > > > > Eli> The question is, what should we do about these patches? Submitting > > Eli> them to upstream readline would be the best course (assuming the > > Eli> readline maintainer is willing to include them), but that means we > > Eli> will have to either wait for the next readline release or keep our > > Eli> local patches for the time being. > > > > Yes, submit them. It is ok if it takes a while for the new readline to > > reach our tree. The result can't be worse than our current situation. > > I sent a private mail to the readline maintainer with the patches. > Let's see what he replies, and take it from there. Chet agreed: > Sure, I'll look at applying the patches. They'll be in the next readline > release. So we can now act on the assumption that the DJGPP-related patches to readline are no longer an issue. Note that I didn't do anything about the MinGW patches. I suggest that their author(s) submit them to readline.