Proposal: obsolete target hppa*-hp-hpux10.*

[Andrew Cagney]

> I propose to obsolete this target in gdb 6.1 and remove it in gdb 6.2:
> 
>   hppa*-hp-hpux10.*

Ah, you've figured out my strategy: shake the tree, see what falls out 
:-) "go for it".

> This does not include hppa*-hp-hpux11.*, which has active development.
> 
> Reasons for removing this configuration:
> 
>   . gdb 6.0 does not build on this configuration.
> 
>     http://sources.redhat.com/gdb/bugs/1411
>     Build of gdb-6.0 on hppa1.1-hp-hpux10.20 fails
> 
>       This is a different build failure than the build failures
>       with hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11.
> 
>   . there is no development activity for this target
> 
>   . there is no QA activity for this target
> 
>   . HP's test drive cluster does not include an hp-ux 10.* machine
> 
>   . HP has discontinued and obsoleted hp-ux 10.*
> 
>     http://h21007.www2.hp.com/dspp/tech/tech_TechDocumentDetailPage_IDX/1,1701,5143,00.html
>     frequently asked questions -- hp-ux
> 
>       2002-06-30   hp-ux 10.20 removed from corporate price list
>       2003-06-30   hp-ux 10.20 product support no longer available from HP
> 
> Reasons for keeping this configuration:
> 
>   . Someone (me) is actively working on native hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11.

Can I guess that you're, at least in part, working on 11.11 because it 
is a stable PA RISC based platform and offers a path for getting 
GNU/Linux PA out of limbo?

>     If gdb works on hpux 11.11, the incremental effort for development
>     and QA of hpux 10.20 is not as big.

This isn't sufficient to justify requiring you spending your volunteer 
time on that system.  If someone is willing to step forward and help, 
that would be really appreciated.

>   . There is at least one user (Dave A), which means that there are
>     probably more users.
> 
> Philosophically, I see the issue as priorities.  It takes work to
> maintain and QA gdb on hpux 10.20.  It takes work even if gdb on hpux
> 11.11 is already working.  I would rather spend my attention somewhere
> else, and so would everybody else in the world, judging by the level of
> activity.

Yes.

Andrew