This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [doc] Avoid conflicts between gdb and cross-gdb.
- From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- To: Doug Evans <dje at google dot com>
- Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>, Mike Frysinger <vapier at gentoo dot org>, gdb-patches <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>, monaka at monami-software dot com
- Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2014 14:34:12 -0700
- Subject: Re: [doc] Avoid conflicts between gdb and cross-gdb.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAJBvFxOPfJU42a-5vk6Uz3UYktAPSwnNekRw19OnuV4jJY0pww at mail dot gmail dot com> <20140801150722 dot GJ14672 at adacore dot com> <3531941 dot zJjkhARRvn at vapier> <20140806132435 dot GC5204 at adacore dot com> <837g2lpmzz dot fsf at gnu dot org> <20140806173705 dot GA4881 at adacore dot com> <83zjfho6sv dot fsf at gnu dot org> <20140806195324 dot GC4881 at adacore dot com> <CADPb22Rjz-tsLrqhBo1DXNJ=pU8sR-E5am11cs2dwtnLxdubQg at mail dot gmail dot com>
> > ... wouldn't that delete gdb.info?
>
> Yeah, but it would also delete all the, e.g., python files (absent
> configure args to put them in separate places, but then the sharing is
> gone).
Hmmm, that's true.
> So either "make uninstall" has to work differently in a shared
> context, or there can be no sharing, or accept the issue and maybe
> provide another uninstall rule to skip possibly shared files.
>
> Though reading the original post I'm not sure "make uninstall" was the
> main motivation here, rather that the installed man page should match
> the installed binary name (and if one went that route then "make
> uninstall" would need similar changes). Could have misread though.
That's what I thought when I approved that patch, and I thought
it did make sense.
> Do we really need to install ${target}-gdb.1 ?
"need" is a matter of degree, IMO :-). Theoretically speaking,
I think that someone using ${target}-gdb should be able to type
"man ${target}-gdb", rather than have to realize that ${target}-gdb
and gdb both have the same interface and thus type "man gdb"
instead.
There are therefore 2 parallel issues:
(1) Should we support out of the box distinct targets to be installed
at the same prefix?
(2) Should the name of some of those files match the name of
the executable?
For (1), I'm leaning towards a "not necessary", but we can perhaps
find a middle ground. I don't know the various defaults to really
help making a decision without spending some time to look at it.
Either way, I have a fairly neutral opinion, so I am happy following
the group.
For (2), I thought that for the man page, and (to some degree, since
I know little about info) the "info" page as well. But again,
I don't really have much of opinion on that.
I don't feel I have much else to share for discussion, so I think
we should just decide (or decide to not decide ;-)), and let people
send patches following those decisions.
--
Joel