From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19145 invoked by alias); 13 Oct 2011 23:56:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 19131 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Oct 2011 23:56:24 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 23:56:10 +0000 Received: from nat-ies.mentorg.com ([192.94.31.2] helo=EU1-MAIL.mgc.mentorg.com) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1REV8D-00078X-39 from joseph_myers@mentor.com ; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 16:56:09 -0700 Received: from digraph.polyomino.org.uk ([172.16.63.104]) by EU1-MAIL.mgc.mentorg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 14 Oct 2011 00:56:07 +0100 Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by digraph.polyomino.org.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 4.74) (envelope-from ) id 1REV8A-0008Id-Ai; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 23:56:06 +0000 Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 23:56:00 -0000 From: "Joseph S. Myers" To: Phil Muldoon cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: GIT and CVS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: 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: 2011-10/txt/msg00100.txt.bz2 On Fri, 14 Oct 2011, Phil Muldoon wrote: > > * normal operations (checkouts, updates, tagging etc.) should be done in > > the normal way for the relevant version control systems, and the > > non-transparency of various systems for grafting pieces from different > > repositories tends to rule those out; > > I agree on the branching, but I do not understand why GDB has to be > tagged/branched in tandem with other projects. We survive OK with the > disparate GCC versions, as well as GLIBC and other close dependencies. I'm not saying "in tandem". I'm saying "in the normal way". That is, a normal "git tag" should tag BFD, libiberty etc. along with GDB, no other special operations needed, pushing the tag should also be done in the normal way, and so on. > BFD is an important part of the GDB setup, no doubt it is. But has > anyone (myself included), talked to the community about it? Is there > any reason why BFD cannot be an external dependency? GCC, as an > external dependency has far more radical design shifts, I think, than > BFD, and we cope just fine. BFD, by design, does not have a stable ABI or API and is closely tied to its clients. The same applies to libiberty (in principle anyway; in practice it may be more stable than BFD so you have more chance of a different libiberty version working with a libiberty client). On the other hand, I'd quite like to see readline not go in the gdb+binutils repository; that ought to be considered an external dependency that you can drop in to the source tree yourself if you want to build it that way. -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com