This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: PATCH Makefile.in
On Jul 5, 2005, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 02:33:12PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jul 4, 2005, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 10:46:35AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> >> This is an argument for the removal of dejagnu and expect from the
>> >> tree, which I agree with. It's the one-line change in the test to
>> >> decide which RUNTEST to use that I'm opposing. I can't imagine such a
>> >> line is too much baggage to carry around. If you think so, well... I
>> >> guess I'll just shut up and wait until your next ports require changes
>> >> in dejagnu.
>>
>> > I keep a local copy of dejagnu in my PATH. I've been doing this for
>> > years (and yes, I do deal with two ports that require changes in
>> > dejagnu). I find this way much more convenient...
>>
>> But not as safe. E.g., I don't want net GCC test runs to be affected
>> by my local changes to dejagnu required by an ongoing port.
> It's obvious that we don't agree. But does anyone besides yourself
> still see value in this?
I guess not, so I'll withdraw my objection, since it looks like I'm by
myself, and I don't want to be the one on the way of, erhm, progress?
:-)
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}