This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: Partial autoconf transition thoughts
- From: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro at ds2 dot pg dot gda dot pl>
- Cc: Bernd Jendrissek <berndfoobar at users dot sourceforge dot net>, Nathanael Nerode <neroden at twcny dot rr dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, gdb at sources dot redhat dot com, binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: 13 Jun 2003 11:02:12 -0300
- Subject: Re: Partial autoconf transition thoughts
- Organization: GCC Team, Red Hat
- References: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1030613115951.13762A-100000@delta.ds2.pg.gda.pl>
On Jun 13, 2003, "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl> wrote:
> OK, then what about the following example: on an i386-linux system I have
> three shared binaries of libbfd, one is for i386-linux host and i386-linux
> target, another one is for i386-linux host and mipsel-linux target and the
> last one is for mipsel-linux host and mipsel-linux target.
$(exec_prefix)/$(target_alias) should place them in different
directories.
> Anyway see 'http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2002-05/msg00184.html'
> and its follow ups for the origin of the choice -- as you took part in the
> discussion, I'm actually surprised you are not aware of the current setup.
/me claims faulty memory, in self defense :-)
/me notes that the original thread subject was bfd.h, and
$(includedir) is part of $(prefix), not $(exec_prefix) like $(libdir).
Anyway, after re-reading the thread, I remember why we chose to do it
the way we did it. It does make sense, even thought I still find it
not ideal.
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist Professional serial bug killer