This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: GDB and Insight CVS repositories.
- Subject: Re: GDB and Insight CVS repositories.
- From: Brendan Simon <brendan@dgs.monash.edu.au>
- Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 11:31:05 +1000
- CC: gdb@sourceware.cygnus.com, insight@sourceware.cygnus.com
- Organization: CTAM Pty Ltd
- References: <199908190042.RAA27565@andros.cygnus.com>
- Reply-To: brendan@dgs.monash.edu.au
Stan Shebs wrote:
> If so, it makes sense to me that there
> is only one master source repository for Insight and GDB. Those that
> don't want a GUI can build with something like "make all-gdb
> install-gdb" and those who want the GUI can build with something like
> "make all install" or "make all-insight install-insight". It seems
> logical to me and can't see why 2 repositories should exist. Maybe this
> is just an interim thing until Insight is officially released.
>
> Makes sense to me too... In fact, in a GDB with Insight configured in,
> the GUI comes up by default if an X display is available, unless you
> say "-nw" (we imitated Emacs behavior).
>
> I guess the other option is to seperate the GUI sources from GDB
> sources. I'm not sure of the details of how this would be done but
> believe it is possible. Are there any technical reasons why this can't
> or shouldn't be done.
>
> It could be done. The main downside to trying to make it a separate
> package is that Insight is linked closely to GDB - it would be
> difficult (though not impossible) to make current Insight sources work
> with vanilla 4.18, for instance. The "easy" separation would be to
> make it a separate source package that you can unpack on top of a GDB
> source tree - would take a few days to figure that one out. The
> "hard" separation would be to make Insight a separate program; that
> would be several months of fulltime work.
From a purist point of view I think it would be better to keep the packages
seperate, regardless of whether Insight is built as a seperate application or
an integrated application. If it is relatively simple to unpack Insight
sources into a seperate sub directory of the GDB source then this sounds like
it would keep RMS happy and keep the GUI repository seperate from the GDB
repository. I guess this is akin to gcc-core, gcc-c++, gcc-fortran, etc
distribution archives. I guess the difference is that all these components
are officialy accepted by GNU.
If this was to happen, would this mean that gdb would require patches ?
Does GDB have an external API (interprocess comms, TCP/UDP sockets) so that
other GUIs could communicate without having to parse CLI output ?
Brendan Simon.