Re: [Gdb] removing src/dejagnu, src/expect

[Christopher Faylor <me at cgf dot cx>]

On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 05:29:40PM -0400, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
>>The problem with that approach is that you can't necessarily fix all of
>>the problems can you?  In particular, as you noted in the gcc mailing
>>list, Cygwin could be a problem.
>
>You're right; I can't fix the problems.
>
>It would help if someone would post cygwin gdb results to gdb-testers
>so that we know if gdb even builds and the test suite runs.  The last
>cygwin results were from Raoul Gough on 2003-04-28.

Your faith in me is heartwarming.  Yes, gdb builds for cygwin, or at
least it did a month+ ago when I last checked.  I have many good reasons
for not being up-to-date on gdb right now but that is how free software
works, as you know.

>I've gotten into a mood where if gdb-testers doesn't contain any recent
>results for a platform, then I don't care too much if that platform
>breaks.  Which is actually a bad mood because that includes major
>platforms like solaris and cygwin.

Well, please get over your mood and adopt a more proactive approach if
you want to be test suite maintainer.  Don't be passive.  *Ask* if you
want test suite results.  Cheesh.

>Also please note that the decision to remove expect+dejagnu came from
>the Gcc Summit and was announced by Ben Elliston, who's going to do the
>actual removal on 2004-06-11, unless someone objects.

And, the gcc mailing list has been removed from this discussion.  Isn't
that conveeenient?

FWIW, I don't object.  I don't care.  When this goes away, I can
continue to maintain the cygwin fork of expect/dejagnu until such time
as "someone" steps forward to fix things.  The sources aren't going to
be physically deleted from src, so I can always access them.

Of course, it would also be nice if bje checked on any changes needed
for cygwin before pulling the plug.

cgf