This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: bug#11034: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option
- From: Stefano Lattarini <stefano dot lattarini at gmail dot com>
- To: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- Cc: ams at gnu dot org, iant at google dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, 11034 at debbugs dot gnu dot org, gdb at sourceware dot org, automake at gnu dot org, binutils at sourceware dot org, joseph at codesourcery dot com
- Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 17:29:54 +0200
- Subject: Re: bug#11034: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option
- References: <4F72E239.firstname.lastname@example.org> <Pine.LNX.email@example.com> <4F7301DD.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <4F76C08E.firstname.lastname@example.org> <E1SDuIY-0004aQ-0U@fencepost.gnu.org> <4F76D8F2.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <4F79BFDB.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On 04/02/2012 05:16 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>>> "Stefano" == Stefano Lattarini <email@example.com> writes:
> Stefano> True, and that was even stated in the manual; the whole point
> Stefano> of ditching support for cygnus trees is that by now those two
> Stefano> big users are basically not making any real use of the 'cygnus'
> Stefano> option anymore. To quote my previous report:
> Stefano> ./bfd/doc/Makefile.in:AUTOMAKE_OPTIONS = 1.9 cygnus
> Stefano> ./bfd/doc/Makefile.in:# cygnus option.
> Stefano> ./bfd/doc/Makefile.am:AUTOMAKE_OPTIONS = 1.9 cygnus
> Stefano> ./bfd/doc/Makefile.am:# cygnus option.
> But this is a reason not to remove it; or at least to restore the
> previous handling of info files.
> I don't care about the cygnus option per se. It was always a grab bag
> of hacks.
And it's the hacks I'd like to remove, not the option per se :-)
> The issue is removing a feature that an important user relies on.
> So far the suggested replacements haven't seemed that good to me.
Sorry if I sound dense, but what exactly is the feature you are talking