This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: intl directory: gcc vs. src
- From: Steve Ellcey <sje at cup dot hp dot com>
- To: ian at airs dot com
- Cc: binutils at sourceware dot org, gdb at sourceware dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 15:36:22 -0700 (PDT)
- Subject: Re: intl directory: gcc vs. src
> > What do people who build in a combined tree do with intl? Do they use
> > the GCC version or the src tree version? Is there any consensus about
> > whether or not there should be a single version of intl, and if so,
> > which one should be used?
> Yes, there should be a single version of intl. I don't think anybody
> cares which version is used, as long as it works. If you have taken
> the time to test a unified intl, and are prepared to fix any problems,
> I think your patch would be great.
OK, I can sign up for that. While looking at the changes needed for the
text in the MAINTAINERS file, I saw the following entry for libiberty:
| libiberty/; libiberty's part of include/
| gcc: http://gcc.gnu.org
| Changes need to be done in tandem with the official GCC
| sources or submitted to the master file maintainer and brought
| in via a merge. Note: approved patches in gcc's libiberty
| are automatically approved in this libiberty also; feel free
| to merge them yourself if needed sooner than the next merge.
| Otherwise, changes are automatically merged, usually within
| a day.
Can someone tell me about this automatic merge? I was going to submit a
formal patch to change the contents of src/intl but it seems that if we
have an automatic merge to copy libiberty from gcc to src, we could do
the same for intl (and src/config.rhost) and then I wouldn't need to do
any actual checkins for those changes. If we can do that then the only
thing I would need to change by hand would be the intl text that is in
the MAINTAINERS file.
Who maintains this automatic merge process?