From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25152 invoked by alias); 19 Jun 2009 17:18:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 25084 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Jun 2009 17:18:29 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,J_CHICKENPOX_92,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:17:56 +0000 Received: (qmail 5502 invoked from network); 19 Jun 2009 17:17:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digraph.polyomino.org.uk) (joseph@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 19 Jun 2009 17:17:55 -0000 Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by digraph.polyomino.org.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MHhis-0004sJ-3T; Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:17:54 +0000 Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:18:00 -0000 From: "Joseph S. Myers" To: gdb@sourceware.org cc: Samuel Bronson Subject: Re: What is keeping GDB in CVS ? In-Reply-To: <20090619163753.GA9700@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Message-ID: References: <87r5xgqk0k.wl%naesten@gmail.com> <20090619162308.GA13968@caradoc.them.org> <20090619162801.GA14773@caradoc.them.org> <20090619163753.GA9700@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 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: 2009-06/txt/msg00199.txt.bz2 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