Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 07:53:54 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: GDB 5.3 branch cut out
In-Reply-To: <3E06F1F2.2520735C@phekda.freeserve.co.uk>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1021224075043.24775B@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


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?

> The test suite worked fine.

How did you run it, exactly?

> Any objections, if I prepare packages?

None whatsoever, please go ahead.  Don't forget to include bfdsymify in 
the binaries and sources, though.

> 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.

TIA