This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the crossgcc project.
See the CrossGCC FAQ for lots more infromation.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Joe Buck <jbuck@racerx.synopsys.com> wrote: > I am starting to see the problem. You are confusing several things > together and mashing them into one concept that you are calling "the > Cygnus tree". No, I'm not confusing anything. > But > what you're failing to see is that this system was designed so that > a GNU source directory can be made a subdirectory and then built *without > changing it*. No, I'm not failing to see this, I know this very well. > Since you don't appreciate that, you falsely believe that > a huge change had to be made to gcc to get it to build within this > structure. No, I know that there was no big change at that early stage. The big changes came when the original non-Cygnus-tree GNU packages went away and the ones in the Cygnus tree became the only ones remaining, at the same time undergoing a transformation to become dependent on the top level and on other modules. This was certainly much more significant for Binutils and GDB, but I'm arguing that GCC is really no different. I'm sorry that you've failed to see the whole point of my article, which is to persuade the powers that be to merge the src and gcc repos. What's keeping GCC in its own repo are the people on the GNU side of things who see it as independent from the Cygnus tree. But what I'm arguing in my article is that this perception of GCC's independence from the Cygnus tree by some GCC maintainers is bogus. To become really independent, they would have to really break all ties with the Cygnus tree, removing the top-level configure script and Makefile that support the rest of the tree and taking away the single tree build. I very seriously doubt that they'll be able to do that, unless they commit the change anonymously so that the angry mob of embedded developers using the single tree build doesn't get them, and if they are not going to do that, they are still tied to the Cygnus tree whether they are in the main repo with the master copies of the top-level files or using stale mirrors of those files in their own repo, and everyone would benefit and no one would lose anything from switching to the former. > Concept #2 is the CVS archive that Cygnus (now Red Hat) makes releases > from for their own customers. This tree is *not* the same as the "net" > version of gcc (or egcs before it). In many cases, work that Cygnus did > went to customers first and only later was merged into the egcs or GCC > distribution. I know that there are two Cygnus trees, one internal and one public, with the former being very old and the latter not being complete yet because of someone's reluctance to merge /cvs/src and /cvs/gcc on the Sourceware box. This is explained in my article too, clearly enough I think. And I also know that the differences between the two are generally kept to a minimum. Also don't forget that before the public CVS repos were created, there were still public daily or weekly snapshots. I can bet that those were made directly from the trunk of Cygnus' internal repo, proving that it can't be too far away from what the public is allowed to see. As for customer stuff, that's on branches, not on the trunk, or so I've heard. And still note the big problem with your wording. When you talk about the public tree, you are again talking about a separate tree for GCC or EGCS rather the a public version of the full Cygnus tree. *There is no separate GCC or EGCS tree, other than as a nuisance to the developers and users in the two-repo arrangement*. There is a public Cygnus tree now, in /cvs/src on the Sourceware box, which closely mirrors the structure of the old internal tree and contains all of its components that Cygnus was willing to make public, whether they are used in GNU projects (like bfd, opcodes, etc) or are completely non-GNU (like newlib, libgloss, winsup, etc). GCC is the only remaining exception, and I'm doing everything I can to persuade the powers that be to realise that it's no different from everyone else (including Binutils and GDB, which are just as GNU but happily live in the unified public Cygnus tree) and to merge the src and gcc repos. Haven't you noticed lately that every change to the top level has to be carefully applied to both /cvs/src and /cvs/gcc repos? If you have, how can you still think of a separate GCC tree? -- Michael Sokolov Harhan Engineering Laboratory Public Service Agent International Free Computing Task Force International Engineering and Science Task Force 615 N GOOD LATIMER EXPY STE #4 DALLAS TX 75204-5852 USA Phone: +1-214-824-7693 (Harhan Eng Lab office) E-mail: msokolov@ivan.Harhan.ORG (ARPA TCP/SMTP) (UUCP coming soon) ------ Want more information? See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/ Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |