From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19076 invoked by alias); 1 Dec 2002 22:50:36 -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 19030 invoked from network); 1 Dec 2002 22:50:33 -0000 Message-ID: <3DEA91A9.6010009@redhat.com> Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 14:50:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020824 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: Pierre Muller , rda@sources.redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [ADMINISTRIVIA] New RDA mailing list References: <5.0.2.1.2.20021127095625.02489ac0@ics.u-strasbg.fr> <3DE4E23E.5000104@redhat.com> <20021201212149.GC12876@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-q4/txt/msg00009.txt.bz2 >> 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. gdb/gdbserver/ is the FSF's (and hence GDB's) remote debug agent. There is no benefit to the FSF, and its objectives, in replacing something (C) FSF with something (C) Red Hat. Andrew