tv@pobox.com (Todd Vierling) writes:
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2000, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> : GDB 5.1, which isn't that far away (xmas?) will have far better NetBSD
> : support (thanks to J.T. and Matthew) than 5.0.  How is that going to be
> : merged if GDB/BINUTILS are trying to share a common BFD yet the BFD in
> : 5.1 has significant changes?
> 
> Since they come from the same source tree, the bfd in gdb may be imported at
> that time.  Such changes to bfd would benefit more than just gdb, if it adds
> some support for NetBSD that wasn't there before.

right, but then you're on the hook for actually fixing up "the other
tool" (i.e. the one other than the one whose BFD you just imported) to
work properly with the new "significant changes" in the new BFD.

That seems undesirable, to me.


> The proposal as it sits doesn't prevent imports of certain
> subtrees from another source in the same master tree, as long as the sources
> travel only forward in time.

... and as long as the new sources are actually _compatible_ with the
old sources.



cgd