This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: configure/make/make install with moving srcdir, builddir...
- From: DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>
- To: mark at codesourcery dot com
- Cc: neroden at doctormoo dot dyndns dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, binutils at sources dot redhat dot com, gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 19:32:55 -0400
- Subject: Re: configure/make/make install with moving srcdir, builddir...
- References: <email@example.com>
> 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 agree somewhat. IMHO it's important to at least think about all the
features, so we don't *inadvertently* disable one. But more important
is to think of what the users are trying to accomplish, and is there
some *other* way they could do that? If so, we have some flexibility
in how to move forward.
So, to me, it's better to say "What about XYZ?" "No, we're dropping
that" than to say "Oops! We forgot about XYZ" later. But better yet
to just support it if it's reasonable to do so.