Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 00:48:45 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org> To: Kevin Way <kway@wgate.com> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: GDB 4.18 and shared libraries (Mozilla) Message-ID: <20001031004845.C65811@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <20001030113955.A15063@wgate.com>; from kway@wgate.com on Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 11:39:55AM -0500 References: <ybu1yxgjwqo.fsf@jesup.eng.tvol.net.jesup.eng.tvol.net> <20000919103436.B94601@dragon.nuxi.com> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0009201229450.13341-100000@iclub.nsu.ru> <20000920005447.B97385@dragon.nuxi.com> <ybu1yxgjwqo.fsf@jesup.eng.tvol.net.jesup.eng.tvol.net> <200010180000.SAA13097@harmony.village.org> <20001026231524.F9391@dragon.nuxi.com> <20001030113955.A15063@wgate.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 11:39:55AM -0500, Kevin Way wrote: > > > No one is arguing with you that there is a bug. It is a matter of > > > finding someone to fix it. > > > > It isn't a matter of finding _someone_ to fix it, but _where_ to fix > > it. > > > > Either in the offical Binutils src tree where I take Binutils from, > > or in the FreeBSD src/binutils, where I really don't like makeing and > > maintaining local mods -- we've screwed the pooch too many times > > doing that. > > I'm a little confused here, on the 25th you applied the patch which > Bruce Bauman had stole from the binutils CVS tree, thus fixing the bug. Correct. BUT only after the fix was committed to the FSF/GNU Binutils 2.10 release branch (for 2.10.1). > Now on the 26th you're writing a message that indicates you are > unwilling to have any modification from binutils 2.10, even if it > fixes a bug. Someone seems to have recycled an old message. I did reply and cleared up why there was a delay in fixing the problem -- that being in contrib software we need to get the vendor to also accept the fix. > Can I rely on the previously applied patch to stay in -STABLE, Definately. > or alternately for binutils or gdb to be updated appropriately such > that debugging works cleanly, without additional source tree patches? The same fix was applied to the FSF/GNU Bintuils 2.10 releaes branch, so the same fix in the exactly same form will be in binutils 2.10.1. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20001031004845.C65811>