This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: DEJAGNU will not build...
- To: Christopher Currie <christopher at currie dot com>
- Subject: Re: DEJAGNU will not build...
- From: Stan Shebs <shebs at apple dot com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 15:21:04 -0700
- CC: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>, Scott Bambrough <scottb at netwinder dot org>, GDB Mailing List <gdb at sourceware dot cygnus dot com>, binutils mailing list <binutils at sourceware dot cygnus dot com>
- References: <3957A1D3.3E81F34@netwinder.org> <3958AB1E.F876408A@cygnus.com> <3959222C.C0BC657F@currie.com>
Christopher Currie wrote:
> Andrew Cagney wrote:
> > It would simply be missing - since people check out ``gdb dejagnu'' or
> > ``binutils dejagnu'' no one has noticed.
> Perhaps this isn't the proper forum to discuss this, but is there a plan
> to separate tools such as dejagnu and libiberty from binutils? Maybe the
> amount of cross-dependency would make this difficult, but right now if
> someone (like myself) wanted to integrate them into another piece of
> software, it's not intuitive which version of libiberty (GDB's?
> binutils?) is canonical, nor, as Scott points out, is it obvious that
> one needs the include directory as well as the source directory.
Things like libiberty and include are in theory separable, but in
practice it's a bunch more work for which volunteers would be in
very short supply - they would be expected to make lots and lots
of new releases just to keep up with revs in the tools. If you
had a credible specific proposal though, I think people would be
On the other hand, dejagnu should always be separate. Unfortunately,
it does not seem to have a regular maintainer (Rob Savoye was going to
do a new release, but I haven't seen anything from him in over a year),
so it's in limbo right now. As a critical piece of infrastructure for
maintaining the GNU toolchain, it's really important for dejagnu to get
first-class maintenance and support.