Re: xxgdb should get pulled
"J.H.M. Dassen" <jdassen@wi.leidenuniv.nl> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 11:28:29 -0500, Daniel Martin wrote:
> > Is my only other choice for a graphical debugger the "lesstif-induced
> > segfault" ddd?
>
> Glad to see my work is appreciated. Perhaps this is where I need to point
> you to the power of having the source? You could e.g. try fixing LessTif
> and/or DDD rather than bitch about it, fix xxgdb, package up UPS, gdbtk,
> tgdb, or deet; or (if you're not fully on the straight and narrow) use
> Motif-linked DDD binaries, or buy Motif and build a Motif-linked DDD for
> Debian, or package up KDbg, or Code Medic.
Part of the problem of having a development model in which the primary
reward for work is ego gratification (assuming one buys all of ESR's
"Homesteading the Noosphere") is that developers tend to get
emotionally attached to their packages, much in the same way that
academics develop an emotional attachment to their theories or
results.
I have yet to learn how to navigate this area, and am often surprised
at how strongly an offhand comment is taken. (I've discovered myself
suddenly CC:ed in a thread on the ddd-devel list which is apparently
speculating about what this lesstif bug might be - when I get it
reproducing reliably, I'll make a real bug report)
Yes, I am grateful that DDD exists and is packaged for Debian, and
that the form it is packaged in allows me to keep one more non-free
package off my system. Yes, I understand that maintaining a package is
difficult; the most complicated packaging I have to deal with is mixed
Tcl and C code - I don't even want to imagine what is involved in
getting ddd, ddd-smotif and ddd-dmotif out of the same source.
Also, I appreciate the names of the other debuggers. I'm looking
closely at Code Medic now. (Though I'm surprised it isn't already on
the wnpp list)
Reply to: