This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [patch 2/2+rfc+doc] Install gcore by default (+new man page)
- From: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- To: Jan Kratochvil <jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2013 12:54:55 -0600
- Subject: Re: [patch 2/2+rfc+doc] Install gcore by default (+new man page)
- References: <20130407185443 dot GB15389 at host2 dot jankratochvil dot net> <83r4ilawlx dot fsf at gnu dot org> <20130408172841 dot GA28868 at host2 dot jankratochvil dot net>
>>>>> "Jan" == Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> writes:
Jan> Leaving it pending for RFC if gcore should be installed at all
I think it should be, because it is useful and "why not?".
Jan> and also if
Jan> current
Jan> src/gdb/gcore.in + src/gdb/gcore
Jan> should not be called for example like before
Jan> src/gdb/gdb_gcore.sh.in + src/gdb/gdb_gcore.sh
I like your new naming.
Jan> <tab>-completion) or if it should not be called with .sh as
Jan> src/gdb/gcore.sh.in + src/gdb/gcore.sh
Jan> although I do not see a reason for it, there are some *.sh files but those are
Jan> not installed.
I think having ".sh" on an installed script is a mistake.
For one thing, if you change the implementation of the command then you
get confusion -- either the ".sh" is actively wrong, or you have to change
the name.
Jan> Also I hope 755 should remain valid without a need for explicit
Jan> chmod during make install.
I thought INSTALL_PROGRAM handled this, but I see it doesn't.
Weird. Anyway I would not worry about it.
Maybe you need one at AC_CONFIG_FILES time, like:
AC_CONFIG_FILES([gcore], [chmod +x gcore])
I'm not sure if this is strictly needed or not.
Tom