This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: don't build send-pr,prms,gnats.tar
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- To: DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>, "neroden at doctormoo dot dyndns dot org" <neroden at doctormoo dot dyndns dot org>
- Cc: "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com" <gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com>, "binutils at sources dot redhat dot com" <binutils at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 13:01:06 -0700
- Subject: Re: don't build send-pr,prms,gnats.tar
--On Tuesday, July 02, 2002 03:02:30 PM -0400 DJ Delorie <email@example.com>
2002-07-02 Nathanael Nerode <firstname.lastname@example.org>
* Makefile.in: Don't build prms, send-pr, or GNATS tar files.
* configure.in: Ditto.
Red Hat still uses send-pr internally. I don't think we use prms
internally though, but safer to just leave those in place for now
since they're all related.
I don't see any harm in leaving this stuff in the Makefiles.
On the other hand, I think it's important we clarify this somewhat; I
have already received one email asking a question about whether or not
your message implies that Red Hat is somehow "special". So, I am
going to try to answer that question here.
The right question to consider when making a change is whether or
not it helps the overall community. In some circumstances,
inconveniencing one party in order to get some other benefit is
the right decision. On the other hand, inconveniencing one party
without getting much benefit in return isn't a good thing.
In this case, I think what we want to say is:
Some folks still build send-pr out of this tree (I know Red Hat does;
I'm not sure about other people).
There's not too much benefit in getting rid of these things (they're
not really standing in the way of the autoconfiscation stuff) so we
may as well leave these things in place.
Mark Mitchell email@example.com
CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com