DDD 3.3.7 compiles ootb (was - RE: DDD 3.3.5 success)

Ronald Landheer-Cieslak blytkerchan@users.sourceforge.net
Thu Sep 4 14:58:00 GMT 2003


On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 10:44:27AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 10:27:49AM -0400, Richard Campbell wrote:
> >cgf wrote:
> >>Haven't I already vetoed this once?
> >
> >Have you?  I searched the cygwin, cygwin-xfree, and cygwin-apps mailing
> >list archives for ddd, read all messages from you, back 2 years on the
> >cygwin list and for all time on the other two, and I see no veto from
> >you for ddd.
> >
> >Where should I have looked?
> 
> Nowhere else.  I thought I'd vetoed this previously.  I guess I hadn't.
> I'm on the fence on this one.  I am not very interested in accepting any
> package which could conceivably increase my own packaging burdens, i.e.,
> if a problem in ddd (or cgdb) requires a change to gdb then I don't want
> to have to worry about that.
As you've quoted cgdb in this statement, I thought I might as well respond :)

There is no Cygwin-specific code in cgdb - all patches I made were to the 
configury.

IMHO, an interface to a program should never require a change to the program
it is an interface to. I see no reason why gdb would have to change for the
benifit of cgdb, and I surely won't promote such an idea. (If, however, cgdb
reveals a problem in gdb that is definitely not cgdb's fault, we're talking
about something different altogether - but that would be bugs, not missing 
features).

IMHO, if a problem in cgdb required a change in gdb, there's something wrong
with cgdb and it should be fixed - on cgdb's side. That would not be something
you'd have to worry about :)

rlc

-- 
To avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing, be nothing.
		-- Elbert Hubbard

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/



More information about the Cygwin mailing list