This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: Synchronizing Binutils and GDB releases
- From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- To: Nicholas Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Tristan Gingold <gingold at adacore dot com>, "binutils at sourceware dot org" <binutils at sourceware dot org>, gdb at sourceware dot org
- Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 18:09:06 +0200
- Subject: Re: Synchronizing Binutils and GDB releases
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <53F21C4B dot 4000109 at redhat dot com>
> The idea was raised at this year's GNU Tool's Cauldron. It would
> help users who manage combined toolchain sources. Currently if they
> want to create a combined tree of specific releases of the gcc, gdb
> and binutils they have to choose which version of the BFD library to
> use. But if they find a bug and want to check in a fix, they have to
> remember that there are actually two versions of the BFD sources to
> patch. Multiply this by a number of different GDB/BINUTILS release
> combintations and this becomes a maintenance headache.
I've been trying to think this through a little:
Binutil's schedule is roughly one release per year. GDB's schedule
is usually 2, but can depend on new features. I don't think that GDB
is thinking of changing the frequency of its releases, so unless
binutils switches to two releases a year, the two projects are not
even on the same schedule. And the release numbering is also different.
Also, finding a branchpoint for a release branch has never been easy
in the past, and having to now consider both binutils and gdb for
creating that branch is only going to make things harder either by
delaying the branching, or by creating more backports.
I think that it would be an extra burden for both projects, and
at the same time, I am not sure I am seeing how it would still
be beneficial for both binutils and GDB to be adoption these
shared release branches. Maybe it's because I don't see why using
a combined tree is making things any different?