From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11019 invoked by alias); 8 Oct 2003 05:51:09 -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 11003 invoked from network); 8 Oct 2003 05:51:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO monty-python.gnu.org) (199.232.76.173) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 8 Oct 2003 05:51:08 -0000 Received: from [207.232.27.5] (helo=WST0054) by monty-python.gnu.org with asmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1A77DR-00018z-So; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 01:50:30 -0400 Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 05:51:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Christopher Faylor CC: gdb@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <20031007232234.GA13268@redhat.com> (message from Christopher Faylor on Tue, 7 Oct 2003 19:22:34 -0400) Subject: Re: Path handling bug in GDB included with MingW 3.1.0-1 Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <002d01c38b8a$6e2d34f0$2101a8c0@kyromaster> <1438-Tue07Oct2003231328+0200-eliz@elta.co.il> <20031007232234.GA13268@redhat.com> X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00130.txt.bz2 > Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 19:22:34 -0400 > From: Christopher Faylor > > Do we *really* want to go down the road of supporting a patched gdb > here? There are people who are familiar with the changes that have gone > into mingw gdb in the mingw mailing list. For whatever reason, they > have chosen not to spend any time getting their patches back into gdb > proper and do not, apparently, read this mailing list. > > I don't see any reason why we should be taking up bandwidth trying to > support what is essentially a gdb fork here. Perhaps there's history to this that I'm not aware of. All I saw was a question from a user of a GDB port for which I thought I could provide some help at a price of a few moments required to write a short email message. I don't see the alleged waste of bandwidth as a real issue here (I doubt that you do, too), and have no idea how heavily is the MinGW port patched and whether the patch authors unwillingness to send the patches upstream is something that warrants a boycott on their users. For the record, I do see it as a Good Thing to have the MinGW port as part of the official GDB distro, and if my response was even a small contribution to that, my time and our bandwidth were well spent. You don't win the hearts of people by refusing to answer their questions, at least in my experience. [Sorry for being a bit blunt, but I was quite astonished of being pounced upon for answering a simple request.]