Sender:	rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk
Message-ID:	<3E082692.244CF6CB@phekda.freeserve.co.uk>
Date:	Tue, 24 Dec 2002 09:19:14 +0000
From:	Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.23 i586)
X-Accept-Language:	de,fr
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
CC:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: GDB 5.3 branch cut out
References:	<Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1021224075043 DOT 24775B AT is>
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Hello.

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 23 Dec 2002, Richard Dawe wrote:
> 
> > I built from gdb-5.3.tar.gz off some GNU mirror in the UK. It built fine.
> > It have a non-empty readline/config.h file. This is against DJGPP CVS
> > from a week or so ago with fileutils, sh-utils and textutils built with
> > the multiple-consecutive-slash patch for symlinks applied.
> 
> On what platform did you build it?  If it's not W2K/XP, perhaps what
> Andrew saw is specific to those systems?

Yes, good point. I built on Windows '98 SE.

> > The test suite worked fine.
> 
> How did you run it, exactly?

As directed in the DJGPP-specific readme, of course. ;)

    cd gdb/testsuite
    sh ../config/djgpp/djcheck.sh
 
> > Any objections, if I prepare packages?
> 
> None whatsoever, please go ahead.  Don't forget to include bfdsymify in
> the binaries and sources, though.

Yes, will do.
 
> > I was also thinking of doing new packages for gdb 5.2.1, since there are
> > no info docs in the binary package.
> 
> I don't see any reason to waste our scarce resources on old versions.  If
> the new GDB 5.3 binary release comes with Info docs, as it should, we could
> simply tell users to upgrade.

I've done new packages of gdb 5.2.1 now. Still, it was good practice for gdb
5.3. ;)

Bye, Rich =]

-- 
Richard Dawe [ http://www.phekda.freeserve.co.uk/richdawe/ ]

- Raw text -