From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29808 invoked by alias); 23 Jan 2003 22:15:07 -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 29764 invoked from network); 23 Jan 2003 22:15:06 -0000 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 22:15:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200301232215.h0NMF4n17674@greed.delorie.com> From: DJ Delorie To: neroden@twcny.rr.com CC: aoliva@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, binutils@sources.redhat.com, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, rda@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <20030123220924.GA13984@doctormoo> (message from Nathanael Nerode on Thu, 23 Jan 2003 17:09:24 -0500) Subject: Re: (committed toplevel patch) Make rda native-only References: <20030123220924.GA13984@doctormoo> X-SW-Source: 2003-q1/txt/msg00008.txt.bz2 > Or I could invoke patch reversion and demand that RDA *not* be built > from the top level, at least in GCC's version of the top level. > That also sounds entirely reasonable to me. That sounds quite drastic to me. If RDA doesn't build for you, take it out of your local sources so it won't be built. As for patch reversion rules, the patch to add rda to gcc's configury did not break anything in the gcc build, so there's no cause to revert it.