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 21:51:29 +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> <4F79C5F2.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On 04/02/2012 09:36 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>>> "Stefano" == Stefano Lattarini <email@example.com> writes:
> Stefano> Sorry if I sound dense, but what exactly is the feature you are
> Stefano> talking about here?
> I was under the impression that it would no longer be possible to build
> info files in the build tree.
It should still be possible, with the right hack (which is tested in the
testsuite, and required by other packages anyway). The baseline is: if
you don't want your '.info' files to be distributed, then it should be
easily possible to have them built in the builddir; but if you want them
distributed, they will be built in the srcdir. The rationale to do so is
to ensure that, in both cases, the developer's tree layout (as bootstrapped
from a VCS checkout) will match the user's tree layout (as obtained from a
> But, I see that, according to the Automake manual, I am wrong about that.
Weird, I didn't expect that hack to be documented in the manual... And in
fact I cannot find it. Could you please point me to it? Thanks.
> So, sorry for the noise.
Well, better safe than sorry :-)