On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 07:06:05PM +1030, Ron wrote:
You've already said you don't have the space for GDB+Python. So file
a wishlist bug to split gdbserver out to its own package, and I'll do
that for you happily.
I haven't seen anyone object to that idea yet, so we seem to have a
rough
Python does seem a very poor choice for this kind of application, given
the traditional bloat of a python installation, but I suppose they've
made their decision...
-Miles
--
... The revolution will be no re-run brothers; The revolution will be live.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Ok, let's see ...
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 06:18:18PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 03:30:20AM +1030, Ron wrote:
I do appreciate, and share, your concern for not bloating the archive
needlessly, but my concern is balancing that against the needs of small
Debian
Picking some arbitrary messages in this thread to respond to.
On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 03:30:20AM +1030, Ron wrote:
I do appreciate, and share, your concern for not bloating the archive
needlessly, but my concern is balancing that against the needs of small
Debian systems, where the extra deps
On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 02:26:53AM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Sun, 2009-12-20 at 11:17 +1030, Ron wrote:
[...]
I don't understand the pushback I'm getting on this. The bloat that was
already added _far_ outweighs the little extra it needs to fix it, and
that's before we save on
#include hallo.h
* Ben Hutchings [Sun, Dec 20 2009, 02:26:53AM]:
On Sun, 2009-12-20 at 11:17 +1030, Ron wrote:
[...]
I don't understand the pushback I'm getting on this. The bloat that was
already added _far_ outweighs the little extra it needs to fix it, and
that's before we save on
Hi Daniel,
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 09:34:53PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
tags 560786 + wontfix
thanks
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 08:22:12PM +1030, Ron wrote:
Not all machines that it's useful to be able to run gdb on
also need or want python installed. Can we please make this
extra
On Sun, 2009-12-20 at 03:30 +1030, Ron wrote:
Hi Daniel,
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 09:34:53PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
tags 560786 + wontfix
thanks
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 08:22:12PM +1030, Ron wrote:
Not all machines that it's useful to be able to run gdb on
also need or
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 08:12:44PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
Why would you install gdb on a (non-development) system, rather than a
gdb stub?
Maybe I'm missing something cool and obvious here, but in the particular
case this came to my attention: simplicity?
The device is amply endowed
On Sun, 2009-12-20 at 08:25 +1030, Ron wrote:
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 08:12:44PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
Why would you install gdb on a (non-development) system, rather than a
gdb stub?
Maybe I'm missing something cool and obvious here, but in the particular
case this came to my
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 11:15:14PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Sun, 2009-12-20 at 08:25 +1030, Ron wrote:
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 08:12:44PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
Why would you install gdb on a (non-development) system, rather than a
gdb stub?
Maybe I'm missing something
On Sun, 2009-12-20 at 11:17 +1030, Ron wrote:
[...]
I don't understand the pushback I'm getting on this. The bloat that was
already added _far_ outweighs the little extra it needs to fix it, and
that's before we save on pruning away libgdb. I don't think I'd be going
out on a limb to suggest
tags 560786 + wontfix
thanks
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 08:22:12PM +1030, Ron wrote:
Not all machines that it's useful to be able to run gdb on
also need or want python installed. Can we please make this
extra dependency optional?
No, we can't. You build GDB either with or without linking to
Package: gdb
Version: 7.0-1
Severity: normal
Hi,
Not all machines that it's useful to be able to run gdb on
also need or want python installed. Can we please make this
extra dependency optional?
Cheers,
Ron
-- System Information:
Debian Release: squeeze/sid
APT prefers unstable
APT
14 matches
Mail list logo
