Re: What is keeping GDB in CVS ?

["Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@codesourcery.com>]

On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Christopher Faylor wrote:

> I still think that the various projects merged under the "src" umbrella
> should be pulled apart and given their own repositories.  There is
> really, for instance, no reason for Cygwin or cgen, which are non-FSF
> projects, to be intermingled with gdb and binutils.

The cpu directory, however, does need including in binutils checkouts 
because it provides the source code to generated files there, even if it 
might otherwise be seen as part of cgen.  (I agree regarding Cygwin; 
likewise the copies of tcl and tk that are still present in src 
checkouts.)

However, we have so far been unable to keep shared files reliably in sync 
between gcc and src.  The following files should be identical, but aren't 
right now.

Makefile.def
Makefile.in
Makefile.tpl
configure
configure.ac
config/ChangeLog
config/lead-dot.m4
config/mh-cygwin
config/tls.m4
config/unwind_ipinfo.m4
config/warnings.m4
include/ChangeLog-9103

I would suggest that before working out systems involving much more 
synchronization of shared files between repositories, we establish a 
system that works reliably for the existing shared directories, 
disallowing manual commits in whichever is declared not to be the master.  
The non-shared toplevel ChangeLog and include/ChangeLog may complicate 
things a bit (I'd suggest renaming the existing toplevel ChangeLogs and 
putting only changes to shared files in a new shared toplevel ChangeLog, 
and likewise include/), as may the existence of files in include/ that are 
only in src not in GCC.  Any system involving splitting up src then needs 
to have similar automatic synchronization.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com