[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: bug#11034: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option

From: Roumen Petrov
Subject: Re: bug#11034: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 00:26:29 +0300
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120314 Firefox/11.0 SeaMonkey/2.8

Hi Stefano,

Stefano Lattarini wrote:
On 04/02/2012 10:19 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
"Stefano" == Stefano Lattarini<address@hidden>  writes:
Stefano>  It should still be possible, with the right hack (which is
Stefano>  tested in the testsuite, and required by other packages
Stefano>  anyway).  The baseline is: if you don't want your '.info' files
Stefano>  to be distributed, then it should be easily possible to have
Stefano>  them built in the builddir; but if you want them distributed,
Stefano>  they will be built in the srcdir.

Now I am confused.  Is it possible to continue to work the way it does
today, or not?

The point is: if you want to have info files build in the builddir *and*
distributed, than no, it won't be possible (without bending over backwards).
But I still don't understand why it's a big deal to have the '.info' files
placed in the srcdir *if you are going do distribute them*.

A lot of manual include path to executable. This path depend from vendor and OS. The correctly written documentation has to use proper paths For instance /bin/sh is correct for most system but on some linux based OS-es it is /system/bin/sh .

So the rule to put into source tree generated files (documentation) prevent parallel build for multiple host or target platforms.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]