This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [patch] require makeinfo 4.2 or better
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- To: cgd at broadcom dot com
- Cc: mark at codesourcery dot com, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, dj at redhat dot com,binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 21:53:34 -0400
- Subject: Re: [patch] require makeinfo 4.2 or better
- References: <yov5znm4df6m.fsf@broadcom.com> <200305030112.h431CbA00420@greed.delorie.com> <mailpost.1051924375.21845@news-sj1-1> <yov5smrwddak.fsf@broadcom.com>
On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 06:33:39PM -0700, cgd@broadcom.com wrote:
> At Sat, 3 May 2003 01:12:55 +0000 (UTC), "DJ Delorie" wrote:
> > I think for this patch, manually applying it to both Makefile.tpl and
> > Makefile.in would be acceptable.
> >
> > Oh, and... approved ;-)
>
> Thanks, i've applied to both gcc and src repositories.
>
> I suppose with the recent changes to use --no-split instead, this
> patch may not be strictly necessary on the GCC 3.3 branch, but it
> could be a boon to people building combined-tree builds with gcc +
> binutils 2.14 (and whatever texinfo happens to be installed on their
> systems).
>
> An alternative is to convert the binutils release branch
> Makefile.{in,tpl} to use --no-split instead (or to use both patches
> 8-), i guess.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Mark? How about this for the gcc 3.3 branch? (And, now, or after
> 3.3? 8-)
>
> Daniel, which (or both) would you like to see on the binutils branch?
I haven't been paying attention. Why does binutils need it?
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer