libiberty/partition.c
Ian Lance Taylor
ian@zembu.com
Sat Mar 25 07:52:00 GMT 2000
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 19:52:32 -0700
From: Jeffrey A Law <law@cygnus.com>
In message < 20000325013507.4371.qmail@daffy.airs.com >you write:
> Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 16:30:58 -0800
> From: Eric Christopher <echristo@cygnus.com>
>
> Doesn't appear to exist in the tree. Looks like this change:
>
> 2000-03-09 Alex Samuel <samuel@codesourcery.com>
>
> * Makefile.in (CFILES): Add partition.c.
> (REQUIRED_OFILES): Add partition.o.
> (partition.o): New rule.
> * partition.c: New file.
>
> Didn't make it in - though it made it into egcs. Wonky.
>
> The binutils/gdb repository and the egcs repository are separate.
> Checking something into egcs does not imply checking it into
> binutils. However, if something is approved for checkin to the egcs
> version of libiberty, please feel free to bring it over to the
> binutils version of libiberty.
I've been wondering how well CVS would work if there was a symlink for the
libiberty & include directories until we can merge the sourceware & gcc
repos. I haven't done any experiments, though I'm rather leery given the
problems the FSF had with symlinks in the CVS tree.
I just looked at the CVS code a bit, and I doubt that it would work
correctly. The find_dirs call appears to explicitly skip symlinks
when searching for directories.
As I recall, the FSF was symlinking at the file level, not the
directory level. I would be dubious about that too, because of the
PreservePermissions support which, if enabled, causes CVS to version
control symlinks.
Ian
More information about the Binutils
mailing list