This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: PATCH Makefile.in
- From: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- Cc: Ben Elliston <bje+dated+1120509497 dot 910ead at air dot net dot au>, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: 04 Jul 2005 10:46:35 -0300
- Subject: Re: PATCH Makefile.in
- References: <20050630063814.A8532@mailhub.air.net.au><orekah6qnj.fsf@livre.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br><20050703190609.GK13811@nevyn.them.org>
On Jul 3, 2005, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 02, 2005 at 02:53:20PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 29, 2005, Ben Elliston <bje+dated+1120509497.910ead@air.net.au> wrote:
>>
>> > There is no longer an in-tree version of DejaGnu in src/dejagnu. This
>> > patch just keeps the gdb Makefile up to date.
>>
>> Not really. It has no advantage whatsoever for those who no longer
>> have dejagnu/runtest in their build trees, but it breaks for those who
>> happen to do. I don't think it's enough of a clean-up to be worth
>> the potential hassle.
> I don't want to carry this baggage around forever. We already rely on
> plenty of installed tools; I think it's long past time to add expect
> and dejagnu to the list.
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.
--
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}