On Mon, 17 Jul 2000, Andrew Cagney wrote:

: I'm offended!  GDB is not BINUTILS :-)

: The expectation is that the GDB, BINUTILS and GCC repositories will
: eventually be merged.

: 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.

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.

: 	o	largely independant
: 		GCC, BINUTILS, GDB
: 		source trees

I started with this, and it was pretty much shot down in favor of sharing
libiberty, libbfd/opcodes, and etc.

: 	o	single unified GDB,
: 		BINUTILS and GCC source
: 		tree.

This is what it is now.

: 	o	unified GCC+BINUTILS
: 		but indepedant GDB.

This is bad for us because we have bfd as a shared object (to keep
individual program sizes down, and to allow us to multitarget bfd without
_huge_ bloat).

: PS: While I've your attention.  Assuming you drag in GDB 5.0 and then
: make local changes, could you please remember to tweek
: gdb/Makefile.in:VERSION so that the GDB identifies its self as something
: other than ``GDB 5.0''.

How about a version number of "x.y.z-TNF"?

-- 
-- Todd Vierling (tv@pobox.com)