From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Brendan Simon To: egcs@cygnus.com Cc: gdb@sourceware.cygnus.com, insight@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: Re: GDB and Insight CVS repositories. Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 18:30:00 -0000 Message-id: <37BB5E59.C4BB46BC@dgs.monash.edu.au> References: <199908190042.RAA27565@andros.cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 1999-q3/msg00075.html Stan Shebs wrote: > If so, it makes sense to me that there > is only one master source repository for Insight and GDB. Those that > don't want a GUI can build with something like "make all-gdb > install-gdb" and those who want the GUI can build with something like > "make all install" or "make all-insight install-insight". It seems > logical to me and can't see why 2 repositories should exist. Maybe this > is just an interim thing until Insight is officially released. > > Makes sense to me too... In fact, in a GDB with Insight configured in, > the GUI comes up by default if an X display is available, unless you > say "-nw" (we imitated Emacs behavior). > > I guess the other option is to seperate the GUI sources from GDB > sources. I'm not sure of the details of how this would be done but > believe it is possible. Are there any technical reasons why this can't > or shouldn't be done. > > It could be done. The main downside to trying to make it a separate > package is that Insight is linked closely to GDB - it would be > difficult (though not impossible) to make current Insight sources work > with vanilla 4.18, for instance. The "easy" separation would be to > make it a separate source package that you can unpack on top of a GDB > source tree - would take a few days to figure that one out. The > "hard" separation would be to make Insight a separate program; that > would be several months of fulltime work. >From a purist point of view I think it would be better to keep the packages seperate, regardless of whether Insight is built as a seperate application or an integrated application. If it is relatively simple to unpack Insight sources into a seperate sub directory of the GDB source then this sounds like it would keep RMS happy and keep the GUI repository seperate from the GDB repository. I guess this is akin to gcc-core, gcc-c++, gcc-fortran, etc distribution archives. I guess the difference is that all these components are officialy accepted by GNU. If this was to happen, would this mean that gdb would require patches ? Does GDB have an external API (interprocess comms, TCP/UDP sockets) so that other GUIs could communicate without having to parse CLI output ? Brendan Simon.