Fwd: [ANNOUNCEMENT] GDB 7.4 release process created!

[Gedare Bloom]

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:35 PM, Ralf Corsepius
<ralf.corsepius at rtems.org> wrote:
> On 12/13/2011 03:31 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>
>> On 12/13/2011 03:13 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I am sure Ralf saw this but wanted to pass it along
>>> anyway.
>>
>>
>> Yes, saw it.
>>
>>> Do the RPMs need to spin for the 7.3.91 tarball?
>>
>> It's at least my plan ...
>>
>> ... but packaging-wise gdb is the most complex package we have ...
>
>
> Temporary results:
> * gdb-7.3.91 installs another file, which is not useful for us and likely is
> not useful in general.
>
> * Building gdb-7.3.91 with system-readline enabled seems to require readline
>> 5. It fails to build on systems with readline5 only (Currently CentOS5 and
> Cygwin). Likely, I will have to resort to enable building against the
> bundled readline on affected systems
> (== regression).
>
>
> Independent of gdb-7.3.91:
> * gdb's python support and python's versioning is becoming an increasing
> problem. It currently breaks re-using CentOS packages on "fairly new, but
> discontinued distros" and switching to "supporting one single distro for
> older RTEMS" (like we currently do for rtems-4.9).
>
> If all else fail, I will likely can not avoid having to resort to drastic
> measures, such as
> * to disable python in gdb, at least on CentOS (This would remove the
> harmful dependencies)
This would be my vote especially if disabling python is not too hard.
Motivated users could build their own python and gdb.

> * to stop trying to reutilize older distros and shutdown repositories hard -
> This would mean to abandon support of older RTEMS toolchains on new distros
> and would mean to abandon providing "legacy packages" on new distros.
>
> IMO, both steps are hardly acceptable and should be avoided - However, I
> currently see no solution.
>
>
>>> Do we have patches that can/should be pushed?
>>
>> I doubt it, nevertheless, to be checked.
>
> Check the patch in CVS. It's current and mostly identical to what we had in
> gdb-7.2 ... same remarks as before apply.
>
>
>> Sorry for being brief ... "end-of-year" lack of time.
>
> Sorry, these "end of year" "release rushes" do not match with my time
> constraints. No time to take care about this around this time of year.
>
>
> Ralf
> _______________________________________________
> rtems-devel mailing list
> rtems-devel at rtems.org
> http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-devel