From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7418 invoked by alias); 5 Feb 2004 20:50:53 -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 7381 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2004 20:50:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO Cantor.suse.de) (195.135.220.2) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 5 Feb 2004 20:50:52 -0000 Received: from hermes.suse.de (Hermes.suse.de [195.135.221.8]) (using TLSv1 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168/168 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by Cantor.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9CEA14925D; Thu, 5 Feb 2004 21:47:28 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2004 20:50:00 -0000 From: Gerald Pfeifer To: Ben Elliston Cc: Andrew Cagney , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com, binutils@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: DejaGnu 1.4.4 release In-Reply-To: <87llnhb6sq.fsf@wasabisystems.com> Message-ID: References: <87smhxiu5d.fsf@wasabisystems.com> <40229AA6.4010005@gnu.org> <87llnhb6sq.fsf@wasabisystems.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2004-02/txt/msg00049.txt.bz2 On Thu, 6 Feb 2004, Ben Elliston wrote: >> - 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. Thanks! >> - should src/dejagnu/ be removed? > What would the alternative be? To just expect (ha!) developers to > have DejaGnu installed on their systems? Yes. If not right away, than in the mid term: we require casual testers of CVS GCC to have bison and developers to have autoconf etc.; and if upstream DejaGnu "just works", let's use that. Most distributions will provide DejaGnu as a package anyway. Gerald -- Gerald Pfeifer Technical Project Manager, SUSE Linux AG