This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option
- From: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
- To: Stefano Lattarini <stefano dot lattarini at gmail dot com>
- Cc: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, 11034 at debbugs dot gnu dot org, binutils at sourceware dot org, gdb at sourceware dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Automake List <automake at gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 16:43:03 -0700
- Subject: Re: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option
- References: <4F72E239.firstname.lastname@example.org> <Pine.LNX.email@example.com> <4F7301DD.firstname.lastname@example.org>
Stefano Lattarini <email@example.com> writes:
>> (I think avoiding info documentation being built in the source directory,
>> so that builds could use a non-writable source directory, may have been
>> one part).
> There is probably some hack to obtain this effect (it's tested in the testsuite
> somewhere), but my opinion is that if you distribute the generated info files
> you should also have them generated in the source directory, to avoid nasty
> surprises (for a similar issue, involving yacc and lex, see automake bug#10852,
> in particular messages <http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=10852#14>
> and <http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=10852#15>).
It's important that it be possible to build with the sources on a
It's useful to be able to include .info files in releases so that people
can build the releases without having to have makeinfo installed.