RE: DDD 3.3.7 compiles ootb (was - RE: DDD 3.3.5 success)

RE: DDD 3.3.7 compiles ootb (was - RE: DDD 3.3.5 success)

[Richard Campbell]

cgf wrote:
>
>Haven't I already vetoed this once?

Have you?  I searched the cygwin, cygwin-xfree, and cygwin-apps 
mailing list archives for ddd, read all messages from you, back 
2 years on the cygwin list and for all time on the other two, and 
I see no veto from you for ddd.

Where should I have looked?

-Richard Campbell.

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: DDD 3.3.7 compiles ootb (was - RE: DDD 3.3.5 success)

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 10:27:49AM -0400, Richard Campbell wrote:
>cgf wrote:
>>Haven't I already vetoed this once?
>
>Have you?  I searched the cygwin, cygwin-xfree, and cygwin-apps mailing
>list archives for ddd, read all messages from you, back 2 years on the
>cygwin list and for all time on the other two, and I see no veto from
>you for ddd.
>
>Where should I have looked?

Nowhere else.  I thought I'd vetoed this previously.  I guess I hadn't.
I'm on the fence on this one.  I am not very interested in accepting any
package which could conceivably increase my own packaging burdens, i.e.,
if a problem in ddd (or cgdb) requires a change to gdb then I don't want
to have to worry about that.
--
Please use the resources at cygwin.com rather than sending personal email.
Special for spam email harvesters: send email to aaaspam@sourceware.org
and be permanently blocked from mailing lists at sources.redhat.com

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: DDD 3.3.7 compiles ootb (was - RE: DDD 3.3.5 success)

[Ronald Landheer-Cieslak]

On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 10:44:27AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 10:27:49AM -0400, Richard Campbell wrote:
> >cgf wrote:
> >>Haven't I already vetoed this once?
> >
> >Have you?  I searched the cygwin, cygwin-xfree, and cygwin-apps mailing
> >list archives for ddd, read all messages from you, back 2 years on the
> >cygwin list and for all time on the other two, and I see no veto from
> >you for ddd.
> >
> >Where should I have looked?
> 
> Nowhere else.  I thought I'd vetoed this previously.  I guess I hadn't.
> I'm on the fence on this one.  I am not very interested in accepting any
> package which could conceivably increase my own packaging burdens, i.e.,
> if a problem in ddd (or cgdb) requires a change to gdb then I don't want
> to have to worry about that.
As you've quoted cgdb in this statement, I thought I might as well respond :)

There is no Cygwin-specific code in cgdb - all patches I made were to the 
configury.

IMHO, an interface to a program should never require a change to the program
it is an interface to. I see no reason why gdb would have to change for the
benifit of cgdb, and I surely won't promote such an idea. (If, however, cgdb
reveals a problem in gdb that is definitely not cgdb's fault, we're talking
about something different altogether - but that would be bugs, not missing 
features).

IMHO, if a problem in cgdb required a change in gdb, there's something wrong
with cgdb and it should be fixed - on cgdb's side. That would not be something
you'd have to worry about :)

rlc

-- 
To avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing, be nothing.
		-- Elbert Hubbard

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: DDD 3.3.7 compiles ootb (was - RE: DDD 3.3.5 success)

[Igor Pechtchanski]

On Thu, 4 Sep 2003, Christopher Faylor wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 10:12:29AM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> >Now, does anyone care to package it? ;-)
>
> Haven't I already vetoed this once?
> cgf

Not that I recall.  I believe you vetoed cgdb (as Ronald Landheer-Cieslak
mentioned already).  If you did, I apologize.  If not, I'm assuming you're
planning to.

May I inquire why you propose to veto this package?  FWICS, there are some
clear advantages to using DDD over insight in some contexts (e.g., insight
is a frontend for gdb only, whereas DDD handles other debuggers, as stated
on the list recently; insight is a Win32 app, whereas DDD is an X app;
possibly others).  FWIW, I'd vote for it.

In any case, this discussion is moot until someone volunteers to maintain
it and posts a package proposal to cygwin-apps.  Perhaps this needs to be
continued on that list once this happens, unless you've already decided to
veto the package no matter what.
	Igor
-- 
				http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_		pechtcha@cs.nyu.edu
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_		igor@watson.ibm.com
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D.
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL	a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

"I have since come to realize that being between your mentor and his route
to the bathroom is a major career booster."  -- Patrick Naughton

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: DDD 3.3.7 compiles ootb (was - RE: DDD 3.3.5 success)

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 10:12:29AM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>Now, does anyone care to package it? ;-)

Haven't I already vetoed this once?

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: DDD 3.3.7 compiles ootb (was - RE: DDD 3.3.5 success)

[Igor Pechtchanski]

On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, Richard Campbell wrote:

> I was just able to build DDD 3.3.7 from sourceforge out of the box,
> and was able to attach and step through a simple hello world program
> with it.
>
> Caveats:
> 1) I haven't upgraded to cygwin 1.5 yet.
> 2) I have every cygwin binary package setup will let you install
>         installed.
> 3) The INSTALL says to use "bash ./configure" instead of "./configure"
>         on cygwin.
>
> -Richard Campbell.

Richard,

FWIW, I think #3 was the main gotcha.  #2 is also relevant, as the poster
that started this thread seemed to not have XFree86-devel installed.  I
doubt #1 matters, though.

Now, does anyone care to package it? ;-)
	Igor
-- 
				http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_		pechtcha@cs.nyu.edu
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_		igor@watson.ibm.com
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D.
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL	a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

"I have since come to realize that being between your mentor and his route
to the bathroom is a major career booster."  -- Patrick Naughton

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

DDD 3.3.7 compiles ootb (was - RE: DDD 3.3.5 success)

[Richard Campbell]

I was just able to build DDD 3.3.7 from sourceforge out of the box, 
and was able to attach and step through a simple hello world program 
with it.  

Caveats:
1) I haven't upgraded to cygwin 1.5 yet.
2) I have every cygwin binary package setup will let you install 
	installed.
3) The INSTALL says to use "bash ./configure" instead of "./configure" 
	on cygwin.

-Richard Campbell.

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/