PATCH Makefile.in

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 02:33:12PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jul  4, 2005, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 10:46:35AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> This is an argument for the removal of dejagnu and expect from the
> >> tree, which I agree with.  It's the one-line change in the test to
> >> decide which RUNTEST to use that I'm opposing.  I can't imagine such a
> >> line is too much baggage to carry around.  If you think so, well...  I
> >> guess I'll just shut up and wait until your next ports require changes
> >> in dejagnu.
> 
> > I keep a local copy of dejagnu in my PATH.  I've been doing this for
> > years (and yes, I do deal with two ports that require changes in
> > dejagnu).  I find this way much more convenient...
> 
> But not as safe.  E.g., I don't want net GCC test runs to be affected
> by my local changes to dejagnu required by an ongoing port.

It's obvious that we don't agree.  But does anyone besides yourself
still see value in this?

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC