HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: friedman@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Noah Friedman)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: 3 Jan 93 10:15:44
Organization: Free Software Foundation, 675 Mass Ave. Cambridge, MA 02139
	<1993Jan2.201747.28886@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
	<1993Jan2.215318.18942@husc3.harvard.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nutrimat.gnu.ai.mit.edu

In article <1993Jan2.215318.18942@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>FSF does not give away its CD-ROM or distribution tapes;
>but up until this time, it has been able to explain charging for them
>as "distribution fees"; with the introduction of the differential
>pricing scheme for individuals and businesses, this explanation no
>longer holds any water.

Actually, our original plan was to charge $500 for the CD-ROM plain and
simple.  But we realized that while this isn't unaffordable for most
companies, it is for most individuals.  We decided we'd rather get a
smaller amount from individuals than get nothing at all, so we chose to
charge individuals a smaller amount, namely $100.  (We also changed the
original $500 to $400 for businesses.)

Lots of organizations charge different rates for their services depending
on who you are.  For example, my personal consulting fees for nonprofit
organizations is about half of what I charge commercial ones, precisely
because nonprofits generally have less money (and also because I don't mind
working for less if it's for charitable purposes).  This isn't an uncommon
practice, and I don't think anyone argues that it's unfair.

Considering that buying an equivalent amount of software from us on
magnetic tape will cost around $1200 (which true for both individuals and
businesses), paying $400 for the CDROM even if you're an individual is
still a bargain.

We certainly don't bother to check whether an individual is buying the
CDROM for their company and getting reimbursed.  But I hope this won't
happen much (or at all), because we really need the money to keep
developing more software.  Nearly all of our revenue these days is from our
distribution service.
From: kubo@birkhoff.harvard.edu (Tal Kubo)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: 3 Jan 93 10:50:58 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Math, Harvard Univ.

In article <C09qwG.8no@news.udel.edu> johnston@me.udel.edu 
(Bill Johnston) writes: 
>In article <1993Jan2.215318.18942@husc3.harvard.edu> 
>zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>
>>FSF does not give away its CD-ROM or distribution tapes;
>>but up until this time, it has been able to explain charging for them
>>as "distribution fees"; with the introduction of the differential
>>pricing scheme for individuals and businesses, this explanation no
>>longer holds any water.
>
>Okay, I'll bite ... how would a pricing differential prevent FSF 
>from using a "distribution fee" explanation, if that was indeed
>the only way to "explain" a fee?   

The "distribution cost" is the same in both instances.  Therefore,
any justification of the differential must rest on either business
considerations or semantic legerdemain (can you say, "charitable
contribution?").  Either way, FSF comes out showing the familiar 
family traits of its openly for-profit cousins.

>-- 
>-- Bill Johnston (johnston@me.udel.edu)
>-- 38 Chambers Street; Newark, DE 19711; (302)368-1949

tal   kubo@math.harvard.edu
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4166 talk.philosophy.misc:3131 alt.usage.english:10222 alt.society.anarchy:992
From: mcastle@cs.umr.edu (Michael R Castle)
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 20:57:45 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla, Rolla, MO

In article <C0Auvy.Co4@mtholyoke.edu> jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:
>In article <1993Jan2.221526.18943@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>>[...] on the other hand, as a certified misanthrope with no ready
>>ftp access, I have no way to obtain a copy for nothing.
>
>*bzzzt*... wrong!  You obviously have /some/ kind of network access, or
>you couldn't be posting your never-ending stream of misanthropic rhetoric.
>Given that you apparently have an e-mail address you can obtain GNU software
>"for nothing" via your friendly Internet e-mail<->FTP gateway.
>
Now wait a second.  There are plenty of netnews sites that do not have
email and ftp access.  To solve that problem, however, I recommend setting
up gnu.sources as an alternative means of getting the source out.  It
should not be too hard to set up an automated poster that would post
about 64k an hour.  You should then have a recycle time of about, oh, say
2 months (not that bad really :-).

mrc
-- 
Mike Castle .-=NEXUS=-.  Life is like a clock:  You can work constantly
  mcastle@cs.umr.edu     and be right all the time, or not work at all
S087891@UMRVMA.UMR.EDU   and be right at least twice a day.  -- mrc
    We are all of us living in the shadow of Manhattan.  -- Watchmen
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4128 talk.philosophy.misc:3104 alt.usage.english:10200 alt.society.anarchy:975
From: anthony@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Anthony J Stieber)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: 3 Jan 1993 03:20:19 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Distribution: gnu
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

In article <9301022105.AA10470@raisin-scone> tower@ai.mit.edu (Leonard H. Tower Jr.) writes:

>In retrospect, I wish we had name FSF the:
>	Software Freedom Foundation
>but it's way to late now.

How about the:
	Foundation for Software Freedom
At least the acronym is the same.  Would there be legal problems
with a name change at this point?
--
<-:(= Anthony Stieber	anthony@csd4.csd.uwm.edu   uwm!uwmcsd4!anthony
From: lenoil@catalogic.com (Robert Lenoil)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Profiteering at FSF (was: First GNU CD-ROM)
Date: 29 Dec 92 15:49:29 GMT
Organization: Catalogic, Mountain View, California [Voice: 415-961-4649]

>The CD costs $100 if you are an individual, $400 if you are a
>business.  This is a distribution fee.  The software is `copylefted',
>which means you have the the right to copy, change, and redistribute it.

It seems to me that a "distribution fee" would be to recover the costs of
distribution, which shouldn't differ for individuals vs. businesses. You're
really stretching the "Free" in "Free Software Foundation" by marking up the
CD-ROM cost 400% for businesses. I never would have expected such behavior
from FSF, and am quite disappointed.

Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4168 talk.philosophy.misc:3133 alt.usage.english:10224 alt.society.anarchy:994
From: ddj+@cs.cmu.edu (Doug DeJulio)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: AT&T sells USL to Novell
Date: 21 Dec 92 22:42:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BzMsEL.5pp.2
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <BzMF3I.GMn@news.udel.edu> johnston@me.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) writes:
>Another tidbit for those of you who spent the last few 
>weeks fretting about Apple Computer's bid to buy Novell:  
>CNN just reported that AT&T has sold USL to Novell.

It isn't April, is it?

Imagine the consequences if Apple ends up owning USL.

First of all, what happens to the FSF boycott of Apple?

Second of all, can you imagine a user-interface copyright war over
something like /bin/sh or ls?
-- 
Doug DeJulio
ddj+@cmu.edu
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: tower@ai.mit.edu (Leonard H. Tower Jr.)
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Organization: GNUs Not Usenet
Distribution: gnu
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 17:52:56 GMT

   Date: 2 Jan 93 09:39:01 GMT
   From: zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
   
   >In article <9212300616.AA25845@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu> 
   >rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Richard Stallman) writes:
   >   
   >From 
   >If you'd like us to develop more software, I hope you will order some
   >CDs or tapes and thus help us pay more programmers.  80 CDs, ordered
   >at the company price, will support one programmer for a year.
   
   Not counting the overhead costs, this amount would appear to be less
   than half of the 1985 dollars you paid to your first employee.  Not
   only are you a damn good capitalist, but an efficient slave-driver,
   too.

As the first paid person rms had to work on GNU software, I like to
clarify a few facts:
        - i was paid $30,000 for a year work by a third party, who
assigned me to work with rms on GNU software.
        - 80 * $400 = $32,000.

If you inflation adjust 32,000 1992 dollars to 30,000 1985 dollars,
Zeleny statement that present FSF employees are making less then half
what I was paid in 1985 is close, but the actual amount is a good bit
more then half.

FSF's employees are not slaves though.  They are all working for FSF of
their own free will.

-len
From: johnston@me.udel.edu (Bill Johnston)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: AT&T sells USL to Novell
Date: 21 Dec 92 17:54:53 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware

Another tidbit for those of you who spent the last few 
weeks fretting about Apple Computer's bid to buy Novell:  
CNN just reported that AT&T has sold USL to Novell.

There was no mention of the on-going litigation USL vs.
BSD/386 and UC Berkeley, or of Apple's interest in Novell.
-- 
-- Bill Johnston (johnston@me.udel.edu)
-- 38 Chambers Street; Newark, DE 19711; (302)368-1949
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: GNU relational database product?
From: Michael.Norrish@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Michael Norrish)
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 00:22:32 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Victoria Uni. of Wellington, NZ.

Is there such a thing? It seems like a good idea, and I'm sure there'd
be heaps of demand. Or if there isn't, why shouldn't there be one?

Comments, ideas?

Michael.
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: epstein@cs.uiuc.edu (Milt Epstein)
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Reply-To: epstein@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 05:11:46 GMT

In <1i8cgeINN8l6@shelley.u.washington.edu> tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:

>Michael.Norrish@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Michael Norrish) writes:
>>their use. Pick some 'conventional software companies', do they do
>>this? Does Microsoft have the source for Windows available for ftp at
>>their sites? Is Microsoft perhaps not a conventional software company?
>
>As a programmer, I find Microsoft source code as available to me as FSF
>source code.  That is, not at all.
>
>Compare two hypothetical situtations:
>
>Situtation 1: I take a job to write a program for a company.  I realize that
>something I need to do has been done in Microsoft Windows.  I can't use
>the Windows source, however, because Microsoft has not shown it to me.
>
>Situtation 2: I take a job to write a program for a company.  I realize that
>something I need to do has been done in GNU Emacs.  I can't use the Emacs
>source, however, because the program I am working on is proprietary.
>
>Looks the same to me.

Perhaps superficially, but they are not really the same.  And it
becomes clear when looking at the situations as you've described them:
In situation one, you can't use it because of another company's
policies; in situation 2, you can't use it because of your own
company's policies.

Another point is that since you have the GNU Emacs source, you can
look at the source to see how the piece you're interested in works, so
you can rewrite your own version if need be.

-- 
Milt Epstein
Department of Computer Science
University of Illinois
epstein@cs.uiuc.edu
From: henry@uts.amdahl.com (Henry Cho)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: gas for i960
Date: 22 Dec 92 07:17:53 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

I am looking for a port of GNU gas that can generate i960 code.  You can buy
one from Intel or some other company, but the current gas-1.38 does not have 
i960 capability.  Any idea?
From: swillden@news.ccutah.edu (Shawn Willden)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Why no gdb-4.x on NeXT
Keywords: gdb NeXT
Date: 24 Dec 92 22:49:50 GMT
Reply-To: swillden@icarus.weber.edu
Organization: University of Utah Computer Center
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

This is probably a FAQ, but I didn't see any list, so...

Why isn't the NeXT supported for gdb?  I use gcc-2.2.2 and 2.3.2 on my
NeXT but it's a pain not to have a debugger for them (the ancient
version of gdb shipped with NeXTstep 2.0 can't deal with the debugging
info from the newer compilers).

Shawn,

--
Shawn Willden
swillden@icarus.weber.edu
From: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: 3 Jan 93 04:18:44 GMT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <9301021752.AA25483@life.ai.mit.edu> 
tower@ai.mit.edu (Leonard H. Tower Jr.) writes:

>Date: 2 Jan 93 09:39:01 GMT
>From: zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)

>>In article <9212300616.AA25845@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu> 
>>rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Richard Stallman) writes:

RMS:
>>If you'd like us to develop more software, I hope you will order some
>>CDs or tapes and thus help us pay more programmers.  80 CDs, ordered
>>at the company price, will support one programmer for a year.

MZ:
>Not counting the overhead costs, this amount would appear to be less
>than half of the 1985 dollars you paid to your first employee.  Not
>only are you a damn good capitalist, but an efficient slave-driver,
>too.

LT:
>As the first paid person rms had to work on GNU software, I like to
>clarify a few facts:
>     - i was paid $30,000 for a year work by a third party, who
>assigned me to work with rms on GNU software.
>     - 80 * $400 = $32,000.
>
>If you inflation adjust 32,000 1992 dollars to 30,000 1985 dollars,
>Zeleny statement that present FSF employees are making less then half
>what I was paid in 1985 is close, but the actual amount is a good bit
>more then half.

Hi, Len.  I was there, remember?  In any case, my point is that the
important things in life, -- rent, booze, rides, tuition, books,
smokes, theater tickets, and so on, -- have all gone up in price more
than 100%.  The only important items I can get cheaper these days are
ex-commie goods, like black caviar and exotic women.

LT:
>FSF's employees are not slaves though.  They are all working for FSF of
>their own free will.

Sure they do.  And some slaves sold themselves into slavery of their
own free will.  Like I say, I have no idea whether the above figure
includes overhead, as it ought to; but regardless of that, the implied
maximum figure is way below par for professional work, particularly
when Stallman's original penny-pinching rationale of "they have to
show that they are doing it for the idea" no longer applies as FSF is
looking more and more like a conventional software company.

>-len
>

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Organization: Mount Holyoke College
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 22:04:28 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.113746.18952@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>
>Is it freely available from its maker then?

Yes, it is.  Its maker makes it freely available via computer networks.  If
you do not have access to a computer network, you can purchase access from
a third party, just as you would have to purchase an automobile to drive to
Cambridge to pick up a tape if the FSF were giving away tapes "for free".  Or
do you expect them to pay your postage, as well?

--
Jurgen Botz, jbotz@mtholyoke.edu
Northampton, MA, USA
From: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: 3 Jan 93 16:37:46 GMT
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <1993Jan3.104835.29515@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>
earle@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Greg Earle - Gainfully Unemployed) writes:

>In article <1993Jan2.122330.18937@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

MZ:
>>Semantic drift happens all the time, and it would be foolish for
>>anyone to attempt to countervail its natural forces.  However, I see
>>nothing wrong with objecting to a certain form of semantic reform,
>>which is being promulgated on hypocritically self-serving grounds of
>>protecting "my" rights.  I happen to have a vested interest in the
>>current meaning of the adjective "free"; if you happen to feel
>>otherwise, that is entirely your prerogative, and your problem.

GE:
>Pardon me, but isn't "I am not free to make free software not free!" a
>tautology, or something like that?

It is certainly not the former, in any logically meaningful sense; as
for the latter, yes, -- in approximately the same way a raven is
something like a writing desk.

GE:
>Give it up, already.  Let's call it the "Freely Available Software Foundation"
>and get back to work ...

Is it freely available from its maker then?

>--
>	- Greg Earle				| Disclaimer: These are my
>	  Itinerant Sun Consultant		| opinions only, and not the
>	  isolar!earle@elroy.JPL.NASA.GOV	| opinions of JPL.  They just
>	  (818) 353-8695			| let me post through them ...

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: oz@ursa.sis.yorku.ca (Ozan Yigit)
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Summary: some prefer non-GNUholic software.
Organization: York U. Student Information Systems Project
	<1993Jan2.220350.10661@nntp.hut.fi> <1i7jkcINNbkf@life.ai.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 04:52:30 GMT

Mike Coughlin writes:

   	... The source to a computer program 
   cannot be placed in the public domain for the benefit of humanity.

Sure it can be, has been for decades, thanks to American taxpayers and
their laws, and hopefully it will continue.  As an aside, it is worth
noting that majority of humanity's throughput is in the public domain,
and the collection just increases every passing year. 

							... Anyone
   may take the source, change it and then copyright it in his own name
   for his own benefit.


Yes, indeed. In fact, within the next month or two, I will publish a
public domain scheme interpreter, with exactly and *especially* that
advice: everybody should take it, hack it, improve it, copyright it,
hoard it, claim their own, avoid all acknowledgements to me and another
commercial company which has contributed considerable development time,
and use it, sell it, or do whatever their freedoms with public domain
material allows them to do. If it is useful, if it solves their problems,
saves development time and further helps Scheme replace other "common"
languages, then I have ccomplished my goals. The original and its
further releases [with whatever contributions] will forever remain
in the public domain [yep, I can deal with any possible silliness,
legal or otherwise] no matter what.

... oz
---
Truth doesn't always win friends,  | electric: oz@nexus.yorku.ca
but influences people.-Batty Koda  | pho: [416] 736 2100 x 33976
Newsgroups: gnu.gdb.bug
From: rich@rich.kastle.COM (Richard Krehbiel)
Subject: gdb 4.7 Segmentation Fault
Organization: GNUs Not Usenet
Distribution: gnu
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 10:05:28 GMT

Running Interactive Unix 3.0.1.

Entering "gdb cc1plus", where cc1plus is from GCC 2.3.3, gives an
immediate core dump trying to read the symbol table.

gdb 4.7 was configured as i386-isc with ISC configuration patches I
gave here earlier.  I tried it with the distributed coffread.c, with
similar results.

gcc 2.3.3 was configured as i386-isc-sysv.

Core was generated by `gdb'.
#0  0x43bed in read_one_sym (cs=0x7ffff96c, sym=0xe0535593, aux=0x442110)
    at coffread.c:1281
1281      if (!SDB_TYPE (cs->c_type))
(top-gdb) bt
#0  0x43bed in read_one_sym (cs=0x7ffff96c, sym=0xe0535593, aux=0x442110)
    at coffread.c:1281
#1  0x4354e in read_coff_symtab (symtab_offset=1131060, nsyms=118170,
    objfile=0x440f08) at coffread.c:976
#2  0x42c5f in coff_end_symtab (objfile=0x440f08) at coffread.c:635
#3  0x1f1da in syms_from_objfile (objfile=0x440f08, addr=0, mainline=1,
    verbo=0) at symfile.c:443
#4  0x1f3ea in symbol_file_add (name=0x43be48 "/prod/gnu/gcc-2.3.3/cc1plus",
    from_tty=0, addr=0, mainline=1, mapped=0, readnow=0) at symfile.c:571
#5  0x1f64d in symbol_file_command (args=0x43be8c "", from_tty=0)
    at symfile.c:668
#6  0x1152 in main (argc=2, argv=0x7ffffb40) at main.c:758

Newsgroups: gnu.gdb.bug
From: mattson@cs.ucsd.edu (Jim Mattson)
Subject: gdb 4.7: missing #include "nm.h" in inftarg.c?
Organization: GNUs Not Usenet
Distribution: gnu
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 05:08:27 GMT

When compiled for a sun4os4, gdb 4.7 won't attach to a running process.
The complaint is "Can't attach to a process on this machine."

It appears that inftarg.c needs to include nm.h so that ATTACH_DETACH
will be defined in child_attach().

--jim

Newsgroups: gnu.gdb.bug
From: rheiger@renext.eiger.olivetti.CH (Richard H. E. Eiger)
Subject: gdb crashes system
Reply-To: rheiger@renext.eiger.olivetti.ch
Organization: Olivetti (Schweiz) AG, Branch Office Berne
Distribution: gnu
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 10:46:24 GMT

Working evironment:
	- OS : System V R 4	(Olivetti rel 2.1.1)
	- gcc: 2.3.3
	- gdb: 4.7

So far I haven't been able to build gdb to work on the system mentionned. I  
tried since gcc 2.1 and gdb 4.5 with most releases. The last attempt was with  
the tools above.

Symptom:

Compilation and installation of gdb is no problem. Launching gdb works as well.  
I can navigate in the sources of the program to be debugged and set  
breakpoints. When I type 'r' to run start the program my machine freezes or  
just reboots.

Has anyone an Idea?

--
                         
    ___           _____2
   /   )  /  /   /        Richard H. E. Eiger
  /_ _/  /__/   /__       Ing. Informatik HTL
 /\     /  /   /          Unregistered NeXT fan
/  \   /  /   /_____      rheiger@renext.eiger.olivetti.ch (NeXT mail welcome)

Newsgroups: gnu.gdb.bug
From: sbchanin@ai.mit.edu (Steve Chanin)
Subject: Building gcc/gdb on HP/UX with debugging
Reply-To: sbchanin@ai.mit.edu
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
Distribution: gnu
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 18:53:00 GMT

I'm trying to help a friend build the most current gcc and gdb for an
HP-9000/827 (running HP/UX 8.02).  We would like the gcc to support
debugging.  I'm a little confused about how to do this build.

I have gcc-2.3.3 and gas-1.38 (from prep.ai.mit.edu).  I also have
pa-gas.u2.tar.Z, pa-gas.u3.tar.Z (a version of 1.36), and
pa-gdb-4.6.tar.Z from jaguar.cs.utah.edu.

1)Do I need to build gas before building gcc in order to get debugging
support?
2)Will I be ok if I build gas-1.36 (The HP FAQ says that 1.38.1
doesn't support HP/UX)

3)Will gcc-2.3.3 support HP PA with debugging or do I need the version
of 2.3.1 which is on jaguar (and has been specifically ported for HP
PA)?  I think building the 2.3.3 release would be better than using
the 2.1.1 because of bug fixes, etc.

3)Once I have gcc-2.x built, do I need to do anything special to build
pa-gdb-4.6?

4)Are there any plans to integrate the utah changes into the
gas/gcc/gdb standard distributions?

Thanks,
Steve
--
===============================================================================
DOMAIN: sbchanin@ai.mit.edu                                       Steven Chanin
From: phone@coombs.anu.edu.au (matthew green)
Newsgroups: gnu.gdb.bug
Subject: gdb 4.7 on a pyramid...
Date: 22 Dec 92 13:20:19 GMT
Distribution: gnu
Organization: Australian National University

Hi..

Been trying to compile gdb 4.7 on a Pyramid, running os/x.

> ./configure pyramid
Created "Makefile" in /home/scratch/phone/gdb-4.7
*** opcodes does not support host pyramid-unknown-none
*** BFD does not support host pyramid-unknown-none

The make goes, but it can't make opcodes, or BFD ..  and that
sorta stops gdb from being made..  

Is gdb not supported fully on pyramid machines, or am I 
being stupid ..??

Thanks,
Matt..
Newsgroups: gnu.gdb.bug