From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29498 invoked by alias); 5 Feb 2004 20:38:49 -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 29393 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2004 20:38:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO namadgi.wasabisystems.com) (203.51.24.212) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 5 Feb 2004 20:38:48 -0000 Received: by namadgi.wasabisystems.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D08381EBA6; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 07:38:45 +1100 (EST) To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com, binutils@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: DejaGnu 1.4.4 release References: <87smhxiu5d.fsf@wasabisystems.com> <40229AA6.4010005@gnu.org> From: Ben Elliston Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2004 20:38:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <40229AA6.4010005@gnu.org> Message-ID: <87llnhb6sq.fsf@wasabisystems.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2004-02/txt/msg00048.txt.bz2 Hi Andrew > - should src/dejagnu/ be replaced? IMHO, yes. The 1.4.4 release is very close to the version in src/dejagnu. I've since merged a handful of patches from src -> FSF that were missed and I've a patch that can be applied after a 1.4.4 import that will ensure that nothing will be lost from src/dejagnu. > - should src/dejagnu/ be removed? What would the alternative be? To just expect (ha!) developers to have DejaGnu installed on their systems? I think as a first step, we should go with the former. After a bit of time, we can consider removing it from src altogether. Cheers, Ben