This is the mail archive of the
cygwin@cygwin.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: DDD 3.3.7 compiles ootb (was - RE: DDD 3.3.5 success)
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 10:44:27AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 10:27:49AM -0400, Richard Campbell wrote:
> >cgf wrote:
> >>Haven't I already vetoed this once?
> >
> >Have you? I searched the cygwin, cygwin-xfree, and cygwin-apps mailing
> >list archives for ddd, read all messages from you, back 2 years on the
> >cygwin list and for all time on the other two, and I see no veto from
> >you for ddd.
> >
> >Where should I have looked?
>
> Nowhere else. I thought I'd vetoed this previously. I guess I hadn't.
> I'm on the fence on this one. I am not very interested in accepting any
> package which could conceivably increase my own packaging burdens, i.e.,
> if a problem in ddd (or cgdb) requires a change to gdb then I don't want
> to have to worry about that.
As you've quoted cgdb in this statement, I thought I might as well respond :)
There is no Cygwin-specific code in cgdb - all patches I made were to the
configury.
IMHO, an interface to a program should never require a change to the program
it is an interface to. I see no reason why gdb would have to change for the
benifit of cgdb, and I surely won't promote such an idea. (If, however, cgdb
reveals a problem in gdb that is definitely not cgdb's fault, we're talking
about something different altogether - but that would be bugs, not missing
features).
IMHO, if a problem in cgdb required a change in gdb, there's something wrong
with cgdb and it should be fixed - on cgdb's side. That would not be something
you'd have to worry about :)
rlc
--
To avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing, be nothing.
-- Elbert Hubbard
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/