Hello Hector! Thank you for finding time to look at this issue after half year (in 6.0.2 era). I have already given up my hope, so seeing notification about your reply was reassuring, but I cannot tell the same thing about its content.
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 22:54, Hector Oron <zu...@debian.org> wrote: > On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 03:43:29AM +0100, Przemysław Pawełczyk wrote: >> Package: gdb >> Version: 7.0.1-2+b1 >> Severity: normal >> Tags: patch > >> Now I can say that it's broken, but finding out that gdb is the culprit, >> whether it was fixed already in newer versions and when exactly took me >> all day. Squeeze is frozen, so I was determined to find a solution, >> believing it will be applied. > > Thanks for the finding and work! > > Do you think we can close this bug for unstable/wheezy? As I understand is it > already fixed in 7.2. "I was determined to find a solution, believing it will be applied." I think it cannot be closed without fixing it in squeeze, because that's the point of debian stable (and I presumably wouldn't lost my time back then for squeeze greatness knowing I will be asked such question). This bug makes use of async commands (and thus interactive debuggers build on top of them) impossible, so I think it is quite important. Is it possible to close a bug for wheezy+ and leave it opened for squeeze? > OTOH, I wasn't thinking on updating already released squeeze, or do you think > it > is very important fix which should go into a point release? I was also not > planning to use backports, but if it helps we could prepare a backports upload > for later release. I can agree that gdb/mi is possibly not the most used stuff in gdb, but it's still there and is broken, which is pretty bad. If fixing broken feature isn't a good reason for update worth of the next point release, then I'm not sure what is. I'm not a package maintainer, so I'm not aware of all the problems behind releasing updates. I may only suspect that it is not that much harder (and more time consuming) than finding and fixing bugs for instance. >> * The problem exists in gdb versions up to 7.1 [...] gdb deserves to be in backports independently of your decision about this bug. Surely gdb users (most of them?) are capable of building their tool, but it is time consuming, so having prepackaged more recent version in repositories would be really nice and gladly welcomed. I hope you'll make a good decision in both topics. Regards. -- Przemysław 'Przemoc' Pawełczyk http://przemoc.net/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
