Re: New GDB snapshot available

[Jim Blandy <jimb@cygnus.com>]

> > The result is simply that the Linux distributions will effectively
> > fork their tree and use a gdb with your patches added. This
> > already happened with RedHat - they ship a gdb 4.17 rpm with your
> > debugging patch added in 5.2. Threads debugging is a critical
> > enough thing that the other dists will probably follow. This is
> > unfortunate, but will happen.
> 
> That is very unfortunate indeed. That is why I bring it up again
> and again. The good news is Jim and I will work to merge all the
> Linux changes into gdb 4.19. The bad news they won't be in gdb
> 4.18. I don't think it is a big loss. I will make a Linux patch
> for gdb 4.18 when it is released. It shouldn't be very hard since
> I have tried to limit my changes in the Linux specific files as
> much as I can.

Hey, hey, be careful here.

I have *not* promised to merge any particular change, from any
particular person.  I *have* decided to spend my personal time
reviewing GDB patches for x86-based Unixoid operating systems on
technical grounds.

I might reject a change, for several reasons:

- I might reject it if it is not a feature I think GDB should have, or
  if I feel it is designed poorly.

- I might reject it if the copyright has not been clearly assigned to
  the FSF, or if it is not clear who the authors are.

- I might reject it if it is not clean.  The patch's author and I may
  not even agree on what "clean" means; that's tough.

These are all qualifications any reasonable Free software maintainer
would insist upon.  Cygnus does too.

That said:

I *do* want to see GDB support GNU/Linux properly.  I know there are
patches circulating and public repositories popping up; those are the
late signs of an unresponsive Free software maintainer.  Cygnus' GDB
group has not been as responsive to the net community as it should be.
I would like to help fix that.  That's why I'm reading and posting on
these lists.