[Gdb] removing src/dejagnu, src/expect

Christopher Faylor me@cgf.cx
Wed Jun 9 00:54:00 GMT 2004

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.


More information about the Gdb mailing list