This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the binutils project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: configure/make/make install with moving srcdir, builddir...

--On Thursday, July 04, 2002 12:36:38 PM -0400 DJ Delorie <> wrote:

I think that's fine.  And if we can really simplify our makefiles that's
worth more than being able to change the $srcdir around.  We can always
add that later if someone really, really needs it.
What about the case where you do a build on one machine, and do "make
install" on many others with different mount points?  Doesn't that
need to know where srcdir is, yet srcdir is a different location for
Yes -- but this is exactly the kind of thing that I think we can live

I know people do this; I know it's convenient.

This is a special case of a general problem we have with GCC.  There are
some processes we have that we know are hard to maintain and error-prone
(build is one, test is another).  On the other hand, over the years, we've
beaten on these issues to the point where there's support for lots and lots
of somewhat obscure usages.

In order to make progress, we know we can't make an incremental change;
we need to make a drastic change.  (In this case, autoconfiscation.)  But,
it's hard to do that and preserve every last feature of the old system,
all at once.  (For one thing, the compiler keeps changing as you go.)

I think we willing to say "Yes, autoconfiscation is good; yes, that hits
the common cases; yes that will reduce our overall development burden.
Do it!"  And then the (relatively few) people who do "make install" onto
a bunch of machines can come back and agitate later to add that feature

The feature is a good one; I just don't think we shouldn't set the bar too

Mark Mitchell      
CodeSourcery, LLC  

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]