Re: Support for unofficial GDB (was: Path handling bug in GDB included with MingW 3.1.0-1)

["Eli Zaretskii" <eliz at elta dot co dot il>]

> Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 09:43:47 -0400
> From: Christopher Faylor <cgf@redhat.com>
> 
> So it's your assertion that we should support anything with the name
> "gdb" in it no matter where it came from?

I think we should try to support what we can when we can.  It all
depends on the available time and the necessary effort.  For example,
if someone asks a question about the official GDB, and it turns out
that to answer it I need to invest 2 hours digging into GDB, I'd
probably decide not to help that person.  OTOH, if the answer to a
question takes a minute to write and send, I'd probably do that for
anyone, unless I know that person to be a sworn enemy of GDB.

> Should I have Red Hat gdb customers send their queries here, too?
> Or are we just drawing the line at commercial customers?

It's a free world.  Everybody should decide for themselves where they
draw the line.  I tried to explain mine above; YMMV.  I will never try
to impose my criteria on others, since the support given here is
essentially a volunteer project.

> The best you can do, since you don't have the actual source code, is offer
> opinions on what might be happening.

That's what I did, actually.

> That might be helpful but it also might lead someone astray.

I cannot guarantee I don't lead people astray even when I do have the
full sources.

> Since there are people out there who are actually familiar with the
> source code in question, it makes sense to redirect queries to them.
> This is what I did.  I did it in my capacity as the person responsible
> for gdb on Windows.

It's okay with me to direct people to other relevant forums, but that
doesn't contradict attempts by others to offer their opinions here.  I
don't read the MinGW list, so I couldn't be of help to the redirected
discussion.

Of course, if it's written somewhere in the charter of this list that
questions about MinGW and other unofficial versions should not be
asked here, then I apologize for my ignorance and wasted bandwidth.

> I have been trying on and off for some time to get the MinGW authors to
> submit their code to the FSF, mentioning that gdb for mingw won't be
> supported until that happens.  If we're going to support it anyway, then
> that rather dilutes my argument.

I'm sorry if I (unbeknownst to me) interfered with your efforts, but
offering an opinion of the kind I posted hardly qualifies as
``support''.