This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
RE: as.info built in the source directory?
- From: "Dave Korn" <dk at artimi dot com>
- To: "'Andrew Cagney'" <cagney at gnu dot org>,"'Ben Elliston'" <bje at au1 dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: "'DJ Delorie'" <dj at redhat dot com>,<binutils at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 14:56:49 +0100
- Subject: RE: as.info built in the source directory?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: binutils-owner On Behalf Of Andrew Cagney
> Sent: 13 July 2004 13:50
> To: Ben Elliston
> Cc: DJ Delorie; binutils
> Subject: Re: as.info built in the source directory?
> > DJ Delorie writes:
> >>> IIRC GNU standards require the info files to be part of the source
> >>> distribution, so we have to build them in srcdir. However, this
> >>> does cause the usual read-only-srcdir problems.
> Normally, the info
> >>> files in cvs should be sufficiently up-to-date such that
> >>> is not normally required.
> > They don't need to be built into the srcdir in order for them to be
> > included in the source distribution. The source tree and the
> > distribution are distinct.
> > The info files aren't in CVS at all. We rely on maintainers to have
> > the tools. I have no problem with that, but they shouldn't go into
> > the source tree.
> >>> This has been discussed in other projects, with no really good
> >>> solution.
> > Yes, it's all downhill from here :-)
> GDB's release process involves a
> configure/make-info/make-clean in the
> src directory. This results in the files being included in
> the distro.
> BTW, pot files have a similar problem.
Why are the .info files considered any different from any of the
autogenerated files? I've wondered why they aren't checked into cvs and
regenerated when their sources are touched in the same way as configure et
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....