From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30514 invoked by alias); 1 Dec 2002 21:21:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact rda-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: rda-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 30368 invoked from network); 1 Dec 2002 21:21:33 -0000 Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 13:21:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Pierre Muller , rda@sources.redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [ADMINISTRIVIA] New RDA mailing list Message-ID: <20021201212149.GC12876@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , Pierre Muller , rda@sources.redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <5.0.2.1.2.20021127095625.02489ac0@ics.u-strasbg.fr> <3DE4E23E.5000104@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3DE4E23E.5000104@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-q4/txt/msg00008.txt.bz2 On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 10:18:22AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > >Hi Christopher, > > > >does that mean that things like my RFC > >[RFC] Correct gdbserver register packets > > > >http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-11/msg00652.html > > > >about a modification to gdbserver should be discussed in that mailing list? > > No. GDBSERVER is part of GDB (which is part of the FSF's GNU project) > and it should continue to be discussed here. I really wish we could come to some resolution about the overlap. Should we sacrifice the FSF-owned gdbserver project in favor of extending RDA? As it is, there's a substantial amount of duplicated effort. I hate seeing effort wasted. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer