This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: GIT and CVS

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011, Phil Muldoon wrote:

> > * normal operations (checkouts, updates, tagging etc.) should be done in 
> > the normal way for the relevant version control systems, and the 
> > non-transparency of various systems for grafting pieces from different 
> > repositories tends to rule those out;
> I agree on the branching, but I do not understand why GDB has to be
> tagged/branched in tandem with other projects.  We survive OK with the
> disparate GCC versions, as well as GLIBC and other close dependencies.

I'm not saying "in tandem".  I'm saying "in the normal way".  That is, a 
normal "git tag" should tag BFD, libiberty etc. along with GDB, no other 
special operations needed, pushing the tag should also be done in the 
normal way, and so on.

> BFD is an important part of the GDB setup, no doubt it is.  But has
> anyone (myself included), talked to the community about it?  Is there
> any reason why BFD cannot be an external dependency?  GCC, as an
> external dependency has far more radical design shifts, I think, than
> BFD, and we cope just fine.

BFD, by design, does not have a stable ABI or API and is closely tied to 
its clients.  The same applies to libiberty (in principle anyway; in 
practice it may be more stable than BFD so you have more chance of a 
different libiberty version working with a libiberty client).

On the other hand, I'd quite like to see readline not go in the 
gdb+binutils repository; that ought to be considered an external 
dependency that you can drop in to the source tree yourself if you want to 
build it that way.

Joseph S. Myers

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]